8T  SERIES,  NO.  64 


SEPTEMBER  1,  1922 


§■  JNIVERSITY  OF  IOWA  STUDIES 


0   ^^^S"" 


k 


STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 


VOLUME  VIII 


NUMBER  2 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY 

1776-1920 


BY 


SOREN  J.  M.  P.  FOGDALL 


PUBLISHED  BY  THE  UNIVERSITY,  IOWA  CITY 


Issued  semi-monthly  thronghout  the  year.     Kntered  at  the  post  office  at  Iowa  City,  Iowa  as 

second  class  matter.     Acceptance  for  mailing  at  special  rate  of  postage  provided  for 

in   Section   1103,   Act   of   October   3,    1917,   authorized   on    July    3,    1918. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  IOWA  STUDIES 
IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 


A.  M.  ScHLESiNGER,  Editor 
C.  M".  Case,  Advisory  Editor  J.  Van  der  Zee,  Advisory  Editor 


VOLUME  VIII  NUM;BER  2 


lPanish-american  diplomacy 

1776-1920^ 


BY 


SOREN  J.  M.  P.  FOGDALL,  Ph.  D. 


PUBLISHED  BY  THE  UNIVEESITY,  IOWA  CITY 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/danishamericandiOOfogdiala 


IHSi 

V3 
/=6 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

Editor's  Introduction 5 

Author's  Preface 7 

I.    Early  Relations  Between  the  United  States  and 

Denmark,  1776-1800 9 

II.    Problems  op  the  Napoleonic  Era,  1800-1815    -    -    29 

III.  The  Negotiation  of  Treaties  and  the  Settlement 

OF  Claims,  1815-1847 47 

IV.  The  Abolition  of  Sound  Dues  and  Other  Problems, 

1841-1860 66 

V.    Danish-American  Relations  Resui^ting  From  the 

Civil  War,  1860-1872 93 

VI.    Miscellaneous  Problems  op  the  Latter  Part  of 

the  Nineteenth  Century,  1868-1900    -    -    -    -  110 

VII.    Recent  Relations  Between  the  United  States  aistd 

Denmark,  1900-1920 140 

Appendices 152 

Bibliography 159 

Index 166 


EDITOR'S  INTRODUCTION 

Dr.  Fogdall  sets  forth  in  this  volume  the  relations  of  the 
United  States  with  one  of  the  smaller  countries  of  northern 
Europe.  His  account  makes  it  amply  evident  that  these  re- 
lations have,  at  times,  been  of  more  than  ordinary  impor- 
tance. To  Americans  of  to-day  it  is  a  matter  of  peculiar 
interest  that  the  waterway  connecting  the  Baltic  Sea  with 
the  Atlantic  Ocean  was  converted  into  a  free  international 
highway  largely  upon  the  initiative  of  the  United  States. 
It  is  also  a  matter  of  gratitude  that  during  the  Civil  "War, 
when  certain  more  powerful  nations  were  unfriendly  to  the 
United  States  government,  Denmark  was  found  in  the  ranks 
of  our  friends.  Finally,  the  transfer  of  the  Virgin  Islands 
to  the  United  States  in  our  generation  is  an  earnest  of  the 
future  harmonious  relations  between  the  two  nations. 

Arthur   M.    Schlesinger. 


AUTHOR'S  PREFACE 

This  work  was  originally  intended  to  cover  the  diplomatic 
relations  between  the  United  States  and  Denmark  from  the 
Revolutionary  War  to  the  end  of  the  nineteenth  century. 
Because  of  the  recent  purchase  of  the  Danish  West  Indies, 
a  short  chapter  has  been  added  in  which  a  brief  survey  has 
been  made  of  the  leading  events  that  have  taken  place 
during  the  last  twenty  years.  An  attempt  has  been  made 
to  arrange  the  chapters  of  this  volume  in  chronological 
order,  but  it  has  been  found  necessary  at  times  to  allow 
them  to  overlap. 

In  preparing  this  volume  the  author  wished  to  use  the 
files  of  the  Department  of  State  at  Washington,  D.  C,  but 
was  unable  to  gain  access  to  them.  Having  asked  for 
permission  the  following  reply  was  received:  "The  Depart- 
ments regrets  to  say  that  it  has  discouraged  application  to 
do  research  work  of  this  character  as  it  has  not  the  facilities 
or  space  to  properly  supervise  and  examine  the  work,  and 
that  therefore  it  is  reluctantly  compelled  to  decline  your 
request  at  this  time."  It  has  thus  been  necessary  to  rely  on 
the  material  found  in  the  various  libraries  and  archives 
mentioned  below. 

In  the  city  of  Des  Moines,  Iowa,  the  author  has  worked 
in  the  Des  Moines  University  Library,  the  Iowa  State  Law 
Library,  and  the  Library  of  the  Historical  Department  of 
Iowa.  Most  of  the  material  in  foreign  languages  has  been 
obtained  in  the  Library  of  Congress  at  Washington,  D,  C. 
The  libraries  of  the  University  of  Iowa  and  of  the  State 
Historical  Society  of  Iowa,  both  located  at  Iowa  City,  have 
been  of  much  value  in  verifying  references. 

During  the  summer  of  1921  it  was  the  author's  privilege 
to  spend  four  months  in  Europe,  Some  of  this  time  was 
spent  in  Copenhagen  where  access  was  obtained  to  the 
Royal  Library,  the  Archives  of  Foreign  Affairs,  and  the 
Archives  of  the  Kingdom  (Rigsarkivet) .    Some  of  the  material 


8  IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

in  these  archives  is  not  yet  released  for  general  use,  but 
three  large  packages  of  original  dispatches  were  examined. 
These  covered  the  period  from  1783  to  1850.  It  must  be  said, 
however,  that  the  material  so  far  released  by  the  Danish 
government  is  practically  the  same  as  that  which  is  already 
published  by  the  government  of  the  United  States. 

The  author  is  indebted  to  Mr.  Herbert  Putnam,  Librarian 
of  Congress,  and  his  assistants  for  the  personal  interest  shown 
and  the  valuable  privileges  extended  to  him  while  in  Wash- 
ington during  the  winter  1920-21.  Thanks  are  also  due  to 
Kristian  Erslev  and  his  assistants  at  Copenhagen.  Similar 
appreciation  is  extended  to  Mr.  Arthur  J.  Small  and  Miss 
Mary  Rosemond  for  valuable  assistance  in  the  Iowa  State 
Law  Library.  Special  thanks  are  due  to  Dr.  Benjamin  F. 
Shambaugh  and  Dr.  Ruth  A.  Gallaher  for  privileges  en- 
joyed in  the  library  of  the  State  Historical  Society  of  Iowa. 

The  author  wishes  to  express  his  sincere  appreciation  to 
Professor  Gilbert  G.  Benjamin,  under  whose  guidance  this 
work  has  been  done,  and  to  Professor  A.  M,  Schlesinger,  editor 
of  the  Studies  in  the  Social  Sciences.  Their  suggestions  and 
criticisms  have  been  very  valuable. 


CHAPTER  I 

EARLY    RELATIONS    BETWEEN    THE    UNITED 
STATES  AND  DENMARK,  1776-1800 

1.  The  Attitude  of  Denmark  toward  the  American  Revo-, 
lution. 

One  of  the  early  problems  that  confronted  the  American 
patriots  in  connection  with  the  Revolution  was  that  of  es- 
tablishing commercial  and  political  relations  with  foreign 
nations.  This  was  necessary  in  order  to  fight  England  suc- 
cessfully and  also  to  establish  the  credit  of  the  infant 
state.  Consequently  Silas  Deane,  a  business  man  from  Con- 
necticut and  a  delegate  from  that  state  to  the  First  and 
Second  Continental  Congresses,  was  sent  to  France  in  Febru- 
ary, 1776,  as  government  agent,  to  borrow  money  and  se- 
cure supplies.  It  is  in  a  letter  from  him  to  the  Committee 
of  Secret  Correspondence,  dated  at  Paris,  August  18,  1776, 
that  Denmark  is  mentioned  for  the  first  time  in  connection 
with  our  international  relations.  Explaining  the  political 
situation  in  Europe,  Silas  Deane  showed  that  Spain,  France, 
and  Prussia  were  likely  to  go  to  war  against  England,  and 
he  added:  "With  respect  to  Russia,  it  is  as  closely  allied 
to  Prussia  as  to  Great  Britain,  and  may  be  expected  to  be 
master  in  the  contest.  Denmark  and  Sweden  are  a  balance 
for  each  other  and  opposites."^ 

It  will  be  remembered  that  ever  since  the  days  of  Charles 
XII,  Sweden  had  been  hostile  to  Russia.  Denmark  on  the 
other  hand  had  generally  been  friendly  to  Russia.  Silas 
Deane  without  doubt  intended  to  convey  the  idea  to  Amer- 
ica that  Denmark  standing  with  Russia  against  Great  Britain 
would  be  a  friend  of  the  new  nation. 

That  Denmark  was  considered  as  a  nation  that  would 
at  least  not  aid   Great  Britain  in  the  struggle  against  her 


1  Francis  Wharton,  Diplomatic  Correspondence   of  the  American  Bevolu- 
tion,  Vol.  II,  p.  119. 


10         IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

colonies  was  also  brought  out  in.  1777  when  Arthur  Lee, 
one  of  our  commissioners  to  France,  wrote  to  the  Committee 
on  Foreign  Affairs:  "As  to  the  reenforcement  of  troops 
which  Great  Britain  will  receive  from  other  powers  of 
Europe  for  the  approaching  campaign  I  can  assure  you, 
sir.  that  your  nation  has  nothing  to  fear  from  Russia  or 
Denmark."  This  he  again  affirmed  in  the  year  1778.^  The 
previous  year  Franklin  and  Deane  had  written  to  the  Com- 
mittee of  Secret  Correspondence  urging  that  the  American 
government  try  to  get  a  free  port  or  two  in  Denmark,  for 
the  sale  of  prizes  as  well  as  for  commerce.^ 

That  the  Danish  people  were  in  sympathy  with  the  Amer- 
ican Revolution  cannot  be  doubted.  We  shall  see  later, 
however,  that  the  man  who  was  at  the  head  of  foreign 
affairs  in  Denmark  was  decidedly  hostile  to  the  Revolution 
and  the  independence  of  the  colonies.  This  was  so  in  spite 
of  [the  fact  that  he  knew  the  people  of  the  country  were 
opposed  to  his  views.  His  correspondence  shows  both  his 
own  stand  on  the  subject  as  well  as  that  of  the  people.*  The 
fact  that  Denmark  took  a  leading  part  in  the  formation  of 
the  League  of  Armed  Neutrality  is  additional  proof  of  the 
same  fact,  since  that  organization  was  created  as  the  re- 
sult of  hostility  to  Great  Britain.'^ 

In  the  hope  of  negotiating  a  treaty  of  commerce,  Stephen 
Sayre  visited  Copenhagen.  In  regard  to  this  visit  the 
foreign  minister  of  Denmark,  Andreas  Peter  Bernstorff, 
wrote  to  his  friend  Ditlev  Reventlow  December  30,  1777: 
"We  have  here  an  agent  of  the  American  colonies,  the 
famous  Sayre,  who  has  come  from  Berlin.     He  proposes  a 


2  Ibid.,  Vol.  II,  pp.  429,  612. 

8  Ibid.,  Vol.  II,  p.  288. 

*  Bernstorff  to  Reventlow,  October  26,   1776.     "Le  public  d'ici  eat  ex- 

tremement  port^  pour  lea  rebelles   (de  I'Am^rique),  non  par  connoisance 

de  cause,  mais  parce  que  le  manie  de  1 'ind^pendance  a  r^ellement  infects 

tous  les  esprits,  et  que  ce  poison  se  r6pand  imperceptiblement  des  ouvragea 

des    philosophes    jusques    dans    les    ^coles    des    villages."      Aage    Friis, 

BernstorffaTce  Fapirer,  Vol.   II,  p.  498. 

8  J.  B.  Scott,  The  Armed  Neutrality  of  1780  and  1800  is  one  of  the  best 

accounts  of  this  alliance  in  English. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         11 

plan  of  commerce  with  America,  very  broad  and  very  ad- 
vantageous. With  precaution  I  have  not  seen  him,  but  I 
am  sufficiently  instructed  concerning  his  proposal,  and  I  see 
very  clearly  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  colonies  continue 
to  hate  the  French  at  the  bottom  of  their  heart  and  that 
their  relations  with  them  are  based  on  necessity  and  are 
rendered  indispensible. '  '^ 

"What  Bernstorff's  answer  was  to  Sayre's  proposal  we 
are  unable  to  say,  but  we  may  infer  that  in  his  own 
peculiar,  crafty  way  he  informed  the  American  agent  that 
Denmark  wanted  to  make  a  treaty  and  would  continue 
negotiations.  At  any  rate,  Sayre  apparently  was  not 
offended.''  He  evidently  got  the  impression  that  Denmark 
was  not  unfavorably  inclined  toward  the  colonists.  Later 
John  Adams  wrote  to  Congress  that  Denmark  was  aiming 
to  defend  herself  at  sea  against  Great  Britain.^  It  would 
thus  seem  that  Denmark  was  a  friend  of  the  new  nation 
or  that  at  any  rate  she  was  a  friendly  neutral. 

2.     The  Bergen  Prizes. 

The  event  that  tested  Denmark's  stand  in  regard  to  the 
independence  of  the  American  colonies  came  in  the  fall  of 
1779  and  is  known  as  the  case  of  the  Bergen  prizes.  The 
famous  Scotchman  John  Paul  Jones  was  plying  the  Eur- 
opean waters  with  an  American  squadron,  bent  on  harass- 
ing British  commerce.  One  of  his  frigates,  the  Alliance,  was 
commanded  by  Captain  Peter  Landais,  a  Frenchman  who  had 
made  himself  famous  in  America  by  transporting  war  supplies 
to  the  colonies  under  very  dangerous  circumstances.  While 
stationed  in  the  North  Sea  Captain  Landais  captured  three 
English  merchantmen,  the  Betsy,  the  Union,  and  the  Charming 
Polly.  Soon  after,  he  met  with  bad  weather,  which  caused 
considerable  damage  to  his  prizes.  He  therefore  sought  refuge 
and  aid  in  what  he  supposed  to  be  the  friendly  port  of  Bergen, 


6  Aage  Friis,  BernstorffsTce  Papvrer,  "Vol.  Ill,  pp.  12-13. 

7  Stephen  Sayre  was  an  adventurer  who  went  to  Europe  and  attempted 
to  force  his  service  on  the  United  States.  Later  he  made  a  claim  on 
Congress  for  money.  His  work  was  investigated  and  his  claim  refused. 
Wharton,  op.   cit.  Vol.  I,  pp.  618-619;  Vol.   Ill,  p.  107. 

8  Wharton,  op.  oit..  Vol.  Ill,  p.  505. 


12         IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

Norway,  a  part  of  the  Danish  domain.  The  British  consul 
in  that  port,  learning  of  the  presence  of  the  prizes,  reported 
it  to  the  British  minister  at  Copenhagen  who  insisted  that 
Denmark  should  restore  the  vessels  to  the  owners.  The 
Danish  foreign  office  complied  with  his  demand  and  ordered 
them  to  be  delivered  to  the  British  government  on  the  ground 
that  Denmark  had  not  yet  acknowledged  the  independence  of 
the  United  States.  The  American  seamen  were  left  to  shift 
for  themselves  without  any  means  of  subsistence. 

M.  de  Chezaulx,  the  French  consul  at  Bergen,  made  a 
report  of  the  affair  to  Benjamin  Franklin,  who  on  December 
22,  1779,  wrote  a  long  letter  to  Andreas  Peter  Bernstorff, 
Danish  Premier  and  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs.  In  this 
letter  Franklin  showed  that  the  law  of  nations  recognized 
every  people  as  a  friendly  nation  unless  it  had  committed 
a  hostile  act.  As  the  United  States  had  never  committed 
a  hostile  act  toward  Denmark,  she  could  by  the  rights  of 
humanity  claim  that  Denmark  should  treat  her  as  a  friend. 
In  ancient  times  among  barbarous  nations,  none  was  recog- 
nized as  a  friend  except  by  treaty,  but  it  would  not  be 
well  for  Denmark  to  revive  that  rule.  He  therefore  re- 
quested that,  if  the  three  prizes  had  not  left  Bergen,  they 
should  be  given  back  to  the  lawful  captors.  If  on  the  other 
hand  the  vessels  had  left,  it  became  his  duty  to  claim  the  value 
of  the  prizes,  which,  as  he  understood,  was  about  fifty  thou- 
sand pounds.  The  amount,  however,  might  be  settled  ac- 
cording to  the  best  information  obtainable.' 

This  affair  excited  much  attention  among  our  diplomats 
abroad.  John  Adams  who  was  at  Paris  in  the  spriag  of 
1780  proposed  to  John  Jay  that  l£  Denmark  should  be  un- 
willing to  make  restitution,  we  ought  not  to  allow  her  pro- 
ducts to  be  consumed  in  America.^"  Congress  passed  a  res- 
olution approving  the  conduct  of  Franklin  and  pledged  its 


•  For  full  text  of  the  letter  see  Wharton,  op.  oit.,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  433-435; 
Jared  Sparks,  Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the  American  BevoUttion, 
Vol.  Ill,  pp.  121-124.  As  the  works  of  Wharton  and  Sparks  largely 
contain  the  same  material,  no  subsequent  references  will  be  made  to 
Sparks  unless  the  material  is  found  there  only. 
10  Wharton,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  678-679. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         13 

support  in  asserting  our  rights  as  an  independent  and  sov- 
ereign nation,^^  As  Denmark  had  not  answered  yet,  Frank- 
lin confidently  hoped  that  she  would  make  amends  for  her 
action,  and  he  so  informed  Jones  under  whom  Landais  had 
acted.^^ 

In  the  late  spring  of  1780  Count  Bernstorff  replied,  that, 
had  it  not  been  for  the  fact  that  Franklin  was  such  a 
sage,  he  would  have  believed  that  he  was  simply  trying  to 
place  Denmark  under  a  new  embarrassment.  Since,  however, 
Franklin's  integrity  was  universally  recognized,  he  would 
divest  himself  of  his  public  character  and  answer  his 
letter,  thereby  proving  that  he  was  a  friend  of  merit,  truth 
and  peace.  Turning  to  the  question  of  the  prizes,  he  wished 
to  state  that  the  whole  unfortunate  affair  had  from  the  be- 
ginning caused  him  much  pain.  There  was,  however,  situa- 
tions where  it  was  impossible  to  avoid  displeasing  either  one 
party  or  the  other.  He  appealed  to  Franklin's  magnanimity 
asking  him  to  consider  the  dilemma  in  which  the  Danish 
government  was  placed.  The  Danish  representative  in  France, 
Baron  de  Blome,  would  be  instructed  in  regard  to  the  matter 
and  it  was  hoped  that  the  affair  might  be  settled  to  the  sat- 
isfaction of  all  concemed.^^ 

It  is  clear  from  this  letter  that  Bernstorff  wanted  Franklin 
to  believe  that  it  had  been  a  disagreeable  duty  for  him  to  de- 
liver the  prizes  to  England,  but  that  he  had  done  so  to 
avoid  unpleasantness  with  his  next  door  neighbor.  For  the 
present  we  do  not  care  to  deal  with  the  question  of  inter- 
national law  pertaining  to  the  case,  but  it  is  desirable  to 
set  forth  the  motives  for  Bernstorff 's  action. 

One  of  the  memorable  periods  in  Danish  history  is  that 
which  is  known  as  the  "Era  of  Struensee."  In  November 
1766,  King  Christian  VII  of  Denmark  had  married  the  six- 
teen year  old  princess,  Caroline  Mathilde,  sister  of  George 
III  of  England.     The  King  was  mentally  weak  and  inclined 


11  Secret  Journals  of  Congress,  Vol.  II,  p.  313. 

12  Wliarton,  op.  oit.,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  528. 

13  Wharton,  op.   cit.,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  528.     The  letter  was  signed  R.  Bern- 
storff.    We  know  of  no  reason  for  this  as  his  initials  were  A.  P. 


14        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

to  immorality,  drunkenness  and  brutality.  He  soon  found 
the  marriage  tie  to  be  an  inconvenience,  and  to  the  chagrin 
of  the  young  queen  indulged  in  a  ridiculous  love  affair  with 
a  woman  of  the  street,  known  popularly  as  "Boot  Kathrine," 
who  became  his  special  and  much  favored  companion  at  social 
functions  of  the  court.  In  her  misery  the  queen  formed  an 
intimate  friendship  with  Fru  Plessen,  a  woman  of  parts  who 
was  opposed  to  the  levity  of  the  court.  This  displeased  the 
king  and  his  friends,  who  styled  Fru  Plessen  the  queen's 
"flea  catcher"  and  had  her  dismissed  from  court.  In  1768 
the  king  made  an  extended  trip  through  Europe.  When  he 
returned  in  1769  two  things  were  noticeable :  first,  his  mind 
was  rapidly  failing;  and  second,  he  had  fallen  entirely  under 
the  influence  of  his  private  physician,  Johan  Frederik 
Struensee.  Morally  this  man  was  of  the  king's  type,  but 
intellectually  he  was  his  master.  With  marvelous  rapidity  he 
advanced  from  one  position  to  another  until  in  1770  he  had 
concentrated  all  governmental  powers  in  the  hands  of  the 
king  and  made  himself  "Maitre  des  requetes."  In  view  of 
the  mental  condition  of  the  king  this  meant  that  Struensee 
was  de  facto  king  in  Denmark.  With  wonderful  skill  he  now 
inaugurated  a  reform  movement  which  compares  favorably 
with  the  work  of  the  most  enlightened  of  the  absolute  mon- 
archs.  His  activities  created  a  large  number  of  enemies 
among  the  conservatives,  who  sought  diligently  for  an  op- 
portunity to  ruin  him.  He  then  committed  the  inexcusable 
blunder  of  becoming  too  familiar  with  the  queen,  who  wel- 
comed his  attentions  as  a  variation  from  the  monotony  of  her 
dreary  life. 

This  situation  afforded  his  enemies  their  opportunity.  A 
coup  d'etat  was  carried  out  in  the  early  morning  of  January 
17,  1772.  Struensee  and  his  close  friend,  Enevold  Brandt, 
were  arrested,  as  was  also  Caroline  Mathilde,  who  was  taken 
to  the  famous  castle  Kronborg  at  Elsinore  as  a  prisoner.  Th** 
two  men  were  condemned  to  death  and  executed  with  barbaric 
cruelty,  while  a  court  of  thirty-five  judges  declared  the  king 
and  queen  divorced.  It  was  the  intention  to  immure  her  in 
the  castle  Aalborghus;  but  through  Sir  Robert  M.  Keith,  the 
British  minister  to  Denmark,  George   III,   backed  by  public 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         15 

opinion  in  England,  secured  her  release.  The  queen,  however, 
was  (forced  to  leave  her  two  little  children  in  the  hands  of 
strangers.  She  was  taken  to  Celle  in  Hanover  where  she 
died  brokenhearted  at  the  age  of  twenty-two.^*  A  conspiracy 
was  soon  formed  by  a  number  of  Danish  malcontents,  who 
had  been  exiled  as  a  result  of  the  coup  d'etat  of  January  17, 
1772.  This  was  backed  by  Sir  N.  W.  Wraxall,  an  English 
nobleman.  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  George  III  denied  it, 
rumor  would  have  it  that  the  British  monarch  was  back  of 
it  all.  The  evident  object  was  the  overthrow  of  the  Danish 
government  and  vengeance  for  the  treatment  of  Struensee 
and  Caroline  Mathilde.^^  At  any  rate  those  in  power  in 
Denmark  felt  very  uneasy.  This  was  accentuated  by  the 
fact  that  George  III  became  so  angry,  as  a  result  of  the 
unjust  treatment  of  his  sister,  that  he  broke  off  all  diplomatic 
relations,  as  soon  as  the  queen  left  Denmark. 

When  Prance  became  a  partner  with  the  colonies  in  the 
war  against  Great  Britain,  England's  need  for  friends 
changed  the  attitude  of  her  king  and  government  toward 
Denmark  somewhat,  and  an  envoy  was  again  sent  to  Copen- 
hagen in  1778.^°  With  this  as  a  background  we  believe  the 
Danish  historian,  Edvard  Holm,  is  correct  when  he  says  of 
Bernstorff:  "Without  doubt  it  was  pleasant  for  him  under 
those  conditions  to  have  the  opportunity  to  put  himself  on 
the  side  of  England.  Some  English  trading  vessels  were 
captured  in  the  fall  of  1779  by  an  American  privateer  near 
the  Norwegian  coast  and  taken  into  Bergen.  As  Denmark 
had    not    yet    recognized    American    belligerency,    Bernstorff 


14  For  a  complete  account  of  the  Era  of  Struensee  and  Caroline  Mathilda, 
"the  Queen  of  Tears,"  see  John  Steenstrup,  et  al.,  Danmarlcs  Eiges 
Eistorie,  Vol.  V,  pp.  281-380;  "Caroline  Mathilde,  Queen  of  Denmark," 
Blackvwod's  Magazine,  Vol.  IX,  pp.  142-147;  "Danish  Revolution  under 
Struensee,"  Edinburgh  Eeview  (1826),  Vol.  XLIV,  pp.  360-383;  "Count 
Struensee  and  Queen  Caroline  Mathilde,"  Westminster  Eeview,  (1882), 
Vol.  CXVIII,  pp.  336-361;  P.  Uldall,  Efterladte  Optegnelser,  passim. 

15  Lascelles  Wraxall,  "The  Hapless  Queen  of  Denmark,"  Eclectic  Maga- 
evn,  (1864),  Vol.  LXin,  pp.  296-297.  The  author  was  the  grandson  of 
N.  W.  Wraxall  and  claimed  he  had  access  to  his  grandfather's  papers. 

16  Edward  Holm,  "Danmarks  Neutralitetsforhandlinger  1778-1780,"  His- 
torisTc  Tidsskrift,  3dje  Rsekke,  Vol.  V,  pp.  4-8. 


16        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

forced  the  privateer  to  give  up  the  prizes.""  The  political 
situation,  supplies  us  with  one  of  the  deeper  reasons  for  the 
action  of  the  Danish  foreign  minister. 

A  second  motive  for  Bernstorff's  action  in  regard  to  the 
Bergen  prizes  was  his  unrelenting  hatred  of  Sweden.  Holm 
caUs  him  '  *  an  untiring  and  irreconcilable  enemy  of  Sweden. ' '" 
For  nearly  three  hundred  years  the  two  countries  had  been 
enemies.  Recently  a  secret  treaty  had  been  agreed  upon 
between  Prance  and  Sweden,  by  which  France  was  to  pay 
to  Sweden  one  and  one-half  million  livres  a  year  for  six 
years  beginning  January  1,  1779.  Although  this  was  sup- 
posed to  be  secret,  Bemstorff  had  gotten  wind  of  its  existence.^' 
He  knew  that  it  was  the  custom  of  the  great  powers  to  play 
off  iSweden  and  Denmark  against  each  other  in  case  of  a 
European  conflict.  He  was  therefore  hostile  to  the  Franco- 
Swedish-American  combine.  Consequently  he  was  unwilling 
in  any  way  to  offend  England. 

But  probably  after  all  the  most  potent  reason  why  Bem- 
storff was  pro-English  was  a  personal  one.  He  was  against 
revolution  and  the  liberal  tendencies  of  his  times.  He  had 
been  one  of  the  powerful  opponents  of  the  reforms  of 
Struensee.  He  complained  that  the  Danish  people  were  in 
favor  of  the  American  rebels  because  they  had  been  poisoned 
in  the  village  schools  by  the  philosophy  of  the  day.^"  He 
also  believed  that  the  independence  of  the  colonies  would  be 
a  positive  menace  to  Denmark.  He  feared  that  it  would 
endanger  the  safety  of  the  Danish  possessions,  cause  a  de- 
crease in  the  Baltic  commerce,  which  on  account  of  the  Sound 
Dues  was  a  source  of  revenue  to  Denmark,  create  a  nation 
which  would  become  a  commercial  rival,  make  France  too 
strong,  and  interfere  with  Danish  trade  in  general.^^ 


17  Edvard  Holm,  Danmark-Norges  Historie,  1766-1808,  pp.   310. 

i«  Edvard  Holm,  "Danmarka  Neutralitetaforhandlinger  1778-1780,"  Eia- 
torisJc  Tidsakrift,  3dje  Rsekke  Vol.  V,  p.  78. 

18  Bemt  von  Schinkel,  Minnen  ur  Sveriges  Nyare  Historia,  Vol.  I,  p.  283; 
Edvard  Holm,  Danmark-Norges  Historie,  1766-1808,  pp.  294-296.  I  have 
been  unable  in  any  of  the  great  collections  of  treaties  to  find  the  text 
of  this  document.    It  is  supposed  to  have  been  signed  in  December,  1778. 

20  Aage  Friis,  Bemstorffske  Tapvrer,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  498. 

21  For  an  expression  of  this  sentiment  by  BemstorflP,  see  Appendix  A. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         17 

Within  the  Council  of  State,  which  had  been  reestablished 
after  the  coup  d'etat  of  1772,  there  was  a  feeling,  however, 
that  Bernstorff  was  too  favorably  inclined  toward  England. 
The  Prince  Royal,  a  half  brother  of  the  demented  king,  who 
was  a  member  of  the  Council  of  State,  addressed  a  letter  to 
his  fellow  members,  which  was  clearly  intended  for  Bernstorff, 
asking  point  blank  why  Denmark  was  pursuing  a  pro-English 
course.  This  letter  was  written  March  9,  1780,  a  short  time 
after  the  American  prizes  had  been  returned  to  England. 
"Can  Denmark,"  he  asked,  "by  becoming  a  special  friend  of 
England  afford  to  become  the  object  of  the  suspicion  of 
Russia,  of  the  dissatisfaction  of  Prussia,  of  the  hate  of  Spain 
and  France,  and  of  the  hostility  of  North  America?  Are 
we  working  for  England  or  for  Denmark,  when  at  the  present 
time  we  are  seeking  to  induce  Russia  to  become  favorable  to 
England  ^2 

Bernstorff  felt  that  the  letter  had  been  written  for  his 
benefit,  and  he  was  much  annoyed  by  its  contents,  as  it  cast 
a  reflection  on  his  foreign  policy.  He  addressed  an  answer 
to  the  Council,  which,  of  course,  was  intended  for  the  Prince 
Royal,  in  which  he  defended  his  foreign  policy  in  general  but 
especially  his  stand  on  the  American  situation.  He  stated 
that  he  felt  it  was  his  duty  to  set  forth  the  reasons  why 
he  was  opposed  to  American  independence.  Briefly  they 
were  as  follows:  (1)  Denmark  would  be  unable  to  protect 
her  West  Indies  if  they  should  be  attacked  by  the  Americans; 
(2)  the  new  nation  would  demand  cash  in  payment  for  pro- 
ducts; (3)  the  United  States  would  become  a  dangerous  rival 
in  the  export  of  foodstuffs;  and  (4)  the  independence  of  the 
colonies  would  reduce  the  Sound  Dues.^^  Bernstorff 's  anti- 
American  feeling  was  also  shown  when  in  1780  the  city  of 
Amsterdam  made  a  treaty  with  the  colonies.  In  a  letter 
he  stated  that  the  states  of  Holland  ought  to  punish  the  mag- 
istrates who  had  signed  the  treaty,  or  they  ought  to  allow 
England  to  take  revenge  on  the  city.^* 

22  Edvard  Holm,  "Danmarks  Neutralitetsforhandlinger  1778-1780,"  His- 
torisk  TidssTcrift,  3dje  Rsekke,  Vol.  V,  p.  73. 

23  For   an  extract   from  the  letter,   see  Appendix  B. 

24  Bernstorff  to  Beventlow,  October  31,  1780.     Aage  Friis,  Bernstorffske 
Papirer,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  633. 


18        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

It  is  now  clear  why  Bernstorff  acted  as  he  did  in  regard 
to  the  Bergen  prizes.  It  was  unfortunate  for  the  United 
States  that,  when  the  Danish  people  and,  it  would  seem,  even 
the  Danish  court  were  favorable  to  the  colonies,  such  a 
strong  statesman  as  Count  Bernstorff  was  hostile  to  our  in- 
dependence. On  the  other  hand,  he  was  not,  fortunately,  at 
the  head  of  a  large  powerful  state. 

Franklin  had  been  informed  that  Baron  de  Blome,  the 
Danish  minister  to  France,  would  be  given  instructions  in 
regard  to  the  Bergen  prize  case.  This  gentleman  stated  that 
an  old  treaty  existed  between  England  and  Denmark,  ac- 
cording to  which  the  Danish  government  was  under  obliga- 
tion to  deliver  the  prizes  to  the  British.  He  did,  however, 
not  show  the  treaty  to  Franklin  nor  was  Franklin  able  to 
discover  such  a  treaty  upon  inquiry.^'  Denmark  consequently 
claimed  that  being  bound  by  a  treaty  to  England  she  was 
under  no  obligation  to  the  United  States.  After  Franklin's 
letter  to  Bernstorff,  the  Danish  government  changed  its  at- 
titude toward  the  American  sailors  at  Bergen.  By  an  order 
from  court  their  expenses  for  the  winter  were  paid,  and 
food,  clothing,  and  passage  from  Bergen  to  Dunkirk  were 
given  them  at  the  king's  expense.''®  When  Congress  was 
informed  of  all  the  facts  in  the  case,  it  instructed  Franklin 
to  continue  to  press  the  claim  on  Denmark.^^  Although  he 
did  so  several  times,  he  was  unable  to  obtain  any  satisfaction.''* 

3.    Danish  Counter-Claims. 

While  Franklin  was  pressing  these  claims  two  incidents 
happened  which  gave  Denmark  an  opportunity  for  counter- 
claims. On  February  6,  1782,  he  was  informed  that  on 
December  2,  1781,  three  American  vessels  had  committed 
outrages  on  two  English  merchantmen  in  Danish  waters 
near  Flekeroe,  Norway.  The  suggestion  was  made  that  it 
was  an  act  of  piracy.  A  demand  was  made  for  the  punish- 
ment of  the  offenders  and  for  indemnification  for  the  vessels 


25  Wharton,   op.   cit.,  Vol.  Ill,  p.   744. 

26  Ihid.,  Vol.  Ill,  p.   744. 

27  Secret  Journals  of  Congress,  Vol.  II,  p.  313;  Ihid.,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  413. 

28  Sparks,  op.  cit..  Vol.  Ill,  p.  201. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         19 

and  cargoes.  Congress  was  informed  of  the  complaint  and 
that  body  through  its  president,  Robert  Livingston,  informed 
Franklin  that  he  should  communicate  to  the  Danish  govern- 
ment that  the  miscreants  had  been  punished  by  a  higher 
hand  as  they  had  been  lost  at  sea.^^ 

Shortly  afterwards  Franklin  was  informed  in  a  dispatch 
from  the  Danish  minister  at  Paris  that  the  ship  Providentia 
of  Christiania,  on  her  way  from  London  to  St.  Thomas  with 
a  cargo  of  merchandise,  had  been  captured  by  the  Amer- 
ican privateer  Henry  under  Captain  Thomas  Benton,  and  had 
been  taken  to  a  port  in  New  England  under  the  pretense 
that  the  cargo  was  English.  Denmark  demanded  restitution 
and  payment  of  damages,  and  reminded  the  United  States  of 
their  privileges  in  the  Danish  West  Indies.  A  hope  was 
expressed  that  friendship  might  continue  to  exist  between 
the  two  nations  in  their  dealings  with  each  other. 

It  does  not  appear  that  any  attention  was  paid  to  this 
representation  until  two  years  later.  On  May  16,  1784, 
Congress  passed  a  resolution  to  the  effect  ''that  a  copy  of 
the  application  of  the  Danish  minister  to  Dr.  Franklin,  and 
a  paragraph  of  his  letter  to  Congress,  on  the  subject  of  the 
capture  of  the  Danish  ship  Providentia,  be  sent  to  the  su- 
preme executive  of  Massachusetts,  who  is  requested  to  order 
duplicates  and  authentic  copies  of  the  proceedings  of  their 
court  of  admiralty,  respecting  the  said  ship  and  cargo,  to  be 
sent  to  Congress."^"  It  does  not  appear  that  the  governor 
of  Massachusetts  ever  reported  on  this  case,  nor  have  any 
court  records  been  found  regarding  it.  As  no  further  cor- 
respondence concerning  these  counter-claims  is  on  record, 
the  cases  seem  to  have  been  dropped. 

A  rather  interesting  suggestion  was  made  by  Robert  Liv- 
ingston in  connection  with  these  claims.  The  Danish  govern- 
ment had  not  corresponded  with  Franklin  directly  but  through 
the  French  minister,  Vergennes.  This  was  done  by  Bem- 
storff  to  avoid  giving  the  appearance  of  recognizing  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  colonies.     Livingston  wrote  to  Franklin  on 


28  Wharton,  op.  dt.,  Vol.  V,  pp.  148,  202,  426. 

80  Ibid.,  Vol.  V.  p.  321;  Journals  of  Congress,  Vol.  IV,  p.  350. 


20         IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

May  30,  1782,  that  if  the  powers  which  had  complaints  against 
us  continued  to  consider  us  under  England  they  should  pre- 
sent their  claims  through  that  nation,  but  if  they  considered 
us  as  independent  they  should  deal  with  us  directly.  Frank- 
lin was  ordered  to  act  accordingly.*^  From  the  fact  that  we 
find  no  more  communications  received  through  the  French 
foreign  office  the  conclusion  seems  valid  that  Franklin  made 
the  European  powers  accept  that  view. 

Upon  inquiry  at  London  it  was  found  that  the  value  of 
the  three  vessels  we  had  lost  amounted  to  50,000  pounds 
sterling,  hence  Franklin  presented  a  claim  to  Denmark  for 
that  amount.*'^  Bernstorff  caused  an  offer  of  10,000  pounds 
sterling  to  be  made  to  the  United  States,  not  as  a  payment  of 
the  claim  but  as  a  means  of  closing  the  incident.  He 
claimed  that  if  the  cases  had  been  carried  into  the  Danish 
courts  the  Americans  would  have  lost  all,  as  by  Anglo-Danish 
treaty  the  ships  belonged  to  England.  Franklin,  however, 
refused  the  offer.** 

As  this  case  continued  to  come  up  for  nearly  seventy  years, 
the  discussion  of  international  law,  as  it  bears  on  this  affair,  is 
left  till  a  later  chapter.  But  it  may  be  well  to  have  it  clear 
that  Denmark  gave  two  reasons  for  delivering  the  ships  to 
England.  The  first  was  the  argument  that  she  had  not 
recognized  the  independence  of  the  United  States,  and  the 
second,  that  her  treaty  with  England  forced  her  to  return 
the  prizes  to  the  owners. 

Although  Franklin  stated  that  he  had  been  unable  to 
discover  the  treaty,  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  did  exist,  and  is 
known  as  the  Anglo-Danish  treaty  of  1660.**  It  would  seem, 
however,  that  the  two  governments  were  not  quite  satisfied 
with  the  stipulations  put  forth  in  this  document,  for  on  July 
4,  1780,  a  new  treaty  was  made  between  Denmark  and  Eng- 
land explaining  more  definitely  Article  III  of  a  treaty  of 
1670.     The  new  treaty  provided  that  the  two  powers  would 


81  Wharton,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  V,  p.  462. 

82  Secret    Journals   of   Congress,    "Vol.    Ill,    p.    413;    Wharton,    op.    cit., 
Vol.  VI,  p.  743. 

33  Ibid.,  Vol.  VI,  pp.  583-584. 

8*  For  the  part  of  the  treaty  of  interest  to  thia  work,  see  Appendix  C. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         21 

not  assist  the  enemies,  the  one  of  the  other,  by  giving  shelter 
to  soldiers  or  vessels,  and  that  they  would  punish  those  of 
their  subjects  as  infractors  of  peace  who  should  act  con- 
trarily.^^ 

4.    Early  Treaty  Negotiations. 

When  it  became  evident  that  the  American  colonies  would 
become  independent,  it  was  but  natural  that  Denmark 
should  try  to  establish  treaty  relations.  In  December,  1782, 
the  Danish  charge  d'affaires  at  Madrid  inquired  of  William 
Carmichael,  our  representative  in  Spain,  concerning  the  meth- 
od Congress  proposed  for  the  interchange  of  ministers.  It 
does  not  appear  whether  or  not  this  was  done  at  the  request 
of  the  Danish  government. 

More  definite  steps  were  taken  in  February,  1783,  when  the 
new  Danish  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Baron  Rosencrone, 
who  had  succeeded  Count  Bernstorff,  instructed  Baron  de 
Walterstorff,  who  was  leaving  Copenhagen  to  take  up  his 
duties  as  Danish  minister  to  France,  to  get  in  communica- 
tion with  Benjamin  Franklin  for  the  purpose  of  making  a 
treaty  with  the  United  States.  Rosencrone  was  not  in  agree- 
ment with  the  attitude  of  his  predecessor,  Bernstorff.  He 
pointed  out  the  advantages  of  such  a  treaty  to  both  nations, 
and  referred  to  the  "glorious  issue  of  this  war  to  the  United 
States  of  America."  He  suggested  that  the  treaty  already 
made  between  the  United  States  and  Holland  be  taken  as  a 
basis  on  which  to  work,  and  that  Franklin  be  asked  to  suggest 
any  changes  or  additions  to  the  court  of  Denmark,^^ 

Walterstorff  did  not  fail  to  carry  out  his  instructions;  and 
in  April,  1783,  Franklin  submitted  a  draft  of  a  treaty 
based,  as  suggested  by  Rosencrone,  on  our  treaty  with  Hol- 
land. He  expressed  the  desire  of  the  United  States  to  enter 
into  treaty  relations  with  Denmark,  but  did  not  forget  to 
suggest  that  to  smooth  the  way  for  the  negotiations  Denmark 
would  do  well  to  hasten  to  settle  the  affair  of  the  Bergen 
prizes.^^ 


35  DansTce   Traotater,  1751-1800,  p.   379. 

36  Wharton,   op.   cit.,  Vol.  VI,  pp.   186,   261. 

3T  Ibid.,  Vol.  VI,  pp.  372-373.     For  the  text  of  the  treaty  with  Holland, 
see  W.  M.  Malloy,  Treaties,  etc.,  1779-1909,  p.  1233. 


22        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

In  aswering  Franklin's  communication,  Baron  Rosencrone 
called  attention  to  the  fact  that  Denmark  had  already  made  an 
offer,  which  he  hoped  Congress  would  consider  as  a  distinguished 
proof  of  the  friendship  of  the  court  of  the  King.  He  also 
enclosed  a  counter-project  of  a  treaty  of  amity  and  com- 
merce. With  the  exception  of  a  few  points  relating  to  the 
Revolutionary  War,  the  making  of  passports,  and  the  gen- 
eral arrangement  of  articles,  this  treaty  was  almost  identical 
with  the  one  made  with  Holland.^® 

Franklin  was  satisfied  with  the  document  and  in  July, 
1783,  sent  it  to  Congress  with  the  hope  that  it  would  be  rat- 
ified speedily.*^  Almost  a  year  passed  and  nothing  was  done. 
On  April  2,  1784,  a  resolution  was  passed  to  the  effect  that 
it  would  be  advantageous  to  conclude  a  treaty  with  Denmark; 
and  the  following  June  Thomas  Jefferson,  Benjamin  Franklin 
and  John  Adams  were  appointed  to  negotiate  with  the  Dan- 
ish government.*"  In  September  they  agreed  to  invite  Baron 
de  Walterstorff  to  meet  them  at  Passy  to  confer  respecting 
the  mode  of  procedure  in  the  negotiations.  In  February, 
1785,  when  de  Walterstorff  was  about  to  leave  Copenhagen, 
he  asked  the  American  ministers  for  such  suggestion  as  in 
their  judgment  might  be  useful  to  hasten  the  making  of  a 
treaty.  This  request  was  made  at  the  order  of  Count  A.  P. 
Bernstorff,  who  through  a  cabinet  crisis  had  returned  to  the 
head  of  the  ministry  April  14,  1784.*^  The  joint  com- 
mission made  a  draft  similar  to  the  one  sent  to  Congress  in 
1783." 

It  is  difiicult  to  understand  why  Congress  did  not  ratify 
the  treaty  of  1783  with  Denmark.  The  records  do  not  indicate 
that  it  was  ever  taken  up  for  discussion.  At  that  time  Rosen- 
crone, a  man  favorable  to  the  United  States,  was  at  the 
head  of  Denmark's  foreign  office.  Now  Bernstorff,  with  whose 
sentiments    we    are    familiar,    was    back    in    power.      It    is 


«8  Wharton,  op.  eit.,  Vol.  pp.  519-527.     This  gives  the  text  of  the  treaty. 
8»  Ihid.,  Vol.  VI,  pp.  585-586. 

*o  Ihid.,  Vol.  VI,  pp.  698,  721,  801,  805;  Journals  of  Congress,  Vol.  Ill, 
p.  456;   Diplomatic  Correspondence,  17SS-1789  Vol.  II,  pp.  193,  197. 
*i  John  Steenstnip,  et  al.,  Danmarks  Siges  Historie,  Vol.  V,  p.  435. 
*2  Diplomatic  Correspondence,  178S-1789,  Vol.  11,  pp.  259-260,  265. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         23 

therefore  not  surprising  that  in  May,  1786,  Baron  de  Blome, 
who  was  sent  to   Paris  because  he  was  a  friend  of  the   re- 
instated chief,  informed  Jefferson  that  de  Walterstorff  would 
not  return  to  France.     He  was  furthermore  given  the  power 
to    state    that    the    commerce    of    Denmark    and    the    United 
States  might  well  be  conducted  under  the  conditions  then  pre- 
vailing without  resorting  to  a  definite  treaty.     If  on  the  con- 
trary the  United  States  were  anxious  to  establish  treaty  re- 
lations,   Denmark    would    be    willing    to    enter    into    further 
negotiations.*^     There  were  apparently  no  further  negotiations 
on  the  subject   at   this  time,    a   circumstance   which  may  be 
explained  by  the  fact  that  Denmark  became  involved  in  war 
with  Sweden,  and  the  United  States  went  through  that  era  of 
uncertainty    often    called    the    ''Critical    Period."      In    the 
light  of  future  events  it  is  regrettable  that  a  treaty  was  not 
made  as  it  might  have  saved  the  United  States  from  a  good 
deal  of  trouble  during  the  Napoleonic  Wars. 
5.     Negotiations  through  John  Paul  Jones. 
The  fact  that  no  treaty  was  made  did  not  mean  that  we 
gave  up  our  claim  based  on  the  Bergen  prizes.     In  Novem- 
ber, 1783,  Congress  had  empowered  John  Paul  Jones  to  go 
to  Europe  to  solicit  payment  from  Denmark  under  the  di- 
rection of  Franklin.**     Jones  went  to  France  but  was  un- 
able to  accomplish  anything  and  consequently  left  the  affair 
in  the  care  of  his  friend  Dr.  Bancroft  in  London,  who  was 
to  work  through   the   Danish  minister   at  the   court   of   St. 
James.*'^    Dr.  Bancroft,  however,  was  no  more  successful  than 
Franklin  had  been. 

43  Ibid.,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  21;  Vol.  IV,  p.  504.  The  original  documents  in 
Danish,  German,  English  and  Freiich  as  well  as  the  correspondence  con- 
nected with  them  are  found  in  Rigsarkivet  at  Copenhagen.  Several  of  the 
letters  are  in  cipher  but  are  translated  into  Danish  and  French.  The 
material  is  found  under  the  following  heading:  "Akter  vedrorende  For- 
handlingeme  om  en  Handelstraktat  mellem  Danmark  og  Nordamerika, 
1783-1786".  Dept.  F.  A.  Nord-amerika  I.  a.  The  dispatches  are  tied 
together  and  marked  "Ffirste  Pakke." 

44  Ibid.,  Vol.  VII,  p.  291-293;  Journals  of  Congress,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  311, 
430,  796. 

45  Diplomatic  Correspondence,  1783-1789,  Vol.  VII,  p.  293. 


24         IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

Finally  Jones  decided  to  go  to  Denmark  to  present  his 
claim  in  person.  After  some  delay  he  obtained  permission 
from  Congress  on  the  condition  that  the  final  settlement 
should  not  be  made  without  the  approbation  of  our  minister 
to  France.  This  was  a  fatal  error,  for  it  gave  the  slippery 
Count  Bernstorff  a  chance  to  shift  the  negotiation.  Armed 
with  the  authorization  of  Congress,  copies  of  the  documents 
relative  to  the  Bergen  prizes,  a  letter  from  an  insurer  of 
London  stating  that  each  of  the  prizes  was  worth  16,000  to 
18,000  pounds  sterling,  a  letter  of  introduction  from  Ver- 
gennes  to  De  La  Houze,  the  French  minister  at  Copen- 
hagen, and  finally  a  personal  letter  of  introduction  from 
Thomas  Jefferson  to  Count  Andreas  Peter  Bernstorff,  Jones  ar- 
rived in  Denmark  in  March,  1788.*'  He  was  very  cordially  re- 
ceived and  was  presented  to  the  King  of  Denmark, — who 
did"  not  speak  when  anyone  was  presented, — *''  as  well  as  to 
the  pleasant  young  crown  prince.*^ 

Thus  far  Jones  had  been  successful,  but  he  had  not  come 
for  these  civilities.  Days  and  weeks  passed,  but  the  minister 
avoided  the  subject  of  the  Bergen  prize  claim.  Finally  Jones 
grew  tired  of  waiting  and  sent  the  following  note  to  Bern- 
storff: "Monsieur:  Your  silence  on  the  subject  of  my 
mission  from  the  United  States  to  this  court,  leaves  me  in 
the  most  painful  suspense;  the  more  so  as  I  have  made  your 
Excellency  acquainted  with  the  promise  I  am  under,  to 
proceed  as  soon  as  possible  to  St.  Petersburg.  Since  this 
is  the  ninth  year  since  the  three  prizes  were  seized — it  is 
to  be  presumed  that  this  court  has  long  since  taken  an 
ultimate  resolution  respecting  the  compensation  demanded 
by  Congress."  He  continued  by  stating  that  while  he  was 
appreciative  of  his  favorable  reception  at  the  court,  yet  he 
was  much  concerned  because  he  had  heard  nothing  of  the 
matter  which  was  the  object  of  his  mission.  He  closed  his 
note  by  asking  for  a  prompt  reply.*®    In  due  time  Bernstorff 


«  Ibid.,  Vol.  VII,  pp.  340,  342,  355-62,  365;  Secret  Journals  of  Congress, 

Vol.  rv,  p.  413. 

*''  Jones  probably  did  not  know  that  the  king  of  Denmark  was  demented. 

48  Diplomatic  Correspondence,  1785-1788,  Vol.  VII,  pp.  365-368. 

*8  Ibid.,  Vol.  VII,  pp.   371-372. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         25 

replied  that  "a  train  of  circumstances  naturally  brought  on 
through  the  necessity  of  allowing  a  new  situation  to  be 
developed  of  obtaining  information  concerning  reciprocal 
interests,  and  avoiding  the  inconvenience  of  a  precipitate 
and  imperfect  arrangement,"  had  delayed  the  matter.  He 
also  stated  that  the  Danish  King  was  anxious  "to  renew 
the  negotiations  for  a  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce,  and 
that  in  the  form  already  agreed  on,  as  soon  as  the  new 
constitution  (that  admirable  plan  so  becoming  the  wisdom 
of  the  most  enlightened  men)  shall  be  adopted  by  a  state 
which  requires  nothing  but  that  to  secure  it  perfect  respect." 
He  further  stated  that,  since  Jones  did  not  have  the  final 
plenipotentiary  power  from  Congress  to  settle  the  matter,  it 
would  be  unnatural  to  change  the  place  of  negotiations  from 
Paris  to  Copenhagen,  especially  since  they  had  never  been 
broken  off  but  only  temporarily  suspended.  He  concluded 
by  wishing  that  friendly  relations  might  continue  to  exist 
and  that  a  treaty  might  be  negotiated.^" 

This  letter  terminated  the  mission  of  Jones  in  Copenhagen. 
The  wily  Bernstorff  had  been  able  to  defer  the  settlement  of 
the  question  again.  Soon  after  this,  Jones  entered 
the  service  of  Czarina  Catharina  II  as  commander  of 
the  Wolodimer.  He  inquired  several  times  of  Jefferson  and 
Baron  De  La  Houze  as  to  the  status  of  the  Bergen  prize 
claims;  but  not  until  March,  1790,  did  he  obtain  a  reply  that 
conveyed  anything  definite.  De  La  Houze  wrote  to  him  at  that 
time  as  follows:  "As  to  the  affair  concerning  which  you 
speak  to  me,  and  in  which  you  have  been  witness  to  my 
zeal, — it  remains  still  at  the  same  point  where  you  left  it  on 
your  departure  for  St.  Petersburg,  the  15th  of  April  1788." 
He  went  on  to  comfort  him  by  saying  that  the  fact  that 
Jefferson,  who  understood  the  case  so  well,  had  become 
Secretary  of  State  would  be  of  great  value  in  the  future 
negotiations.  At  the  present  time,  however,  the  disturbed 
conditions  in  Europe  would  be  likely  to  make  a  settlement 
difficult.^i 


50  Ibid.,  Vol.  VII,  pp.  394-396. 

51  Ibid.,    Vol.    VII,    pp.    399-401.      By    the    "disturbed    conditions"    was 


26        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

Another  year  passed.  By  this  time  Jones  had  left  the 
Russian  service  and  had  come  to  Paris,  from  which  place 
he  wrote  to  Jefferson  on  March  20,  1791:  "But  I  must 
further  inform  you,  that  a  few  days  after  my  arrival  from 
Denmark  at  St.  Petersburg,  I  received  from  the  Danish 
Minister  at  that  court,  a  letter  under  the  seal  of  Count  de 
Bernstorff,  which,  having  opened,  I  found  to  be  a  patent 
from  the  King  of  Denmark,  in  the  following  terms: 

"  'Having  reason  to  wish  to  give  proof  of  our  good  will 
to  the  Chevalier  Paul  Jones,  Commodore  of  the  navy  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  and  desiring,  moreover,  to  prove 
our  esteem  on  account  of  the  just  regard  which  he  has 
borne  to  the  Danish  flag,  while  he  commanded  in  the 
Northern  seas,  we  secure  to  him,  from  the  present  date, 
during  his  life,  annually,  the  sum  of  fifteen  hundred  crowns, 
currency  of  Denmark  to  be  paid  in  Copenhagen  without  any 
deduction  whatever.' 

"The  day  before  I  left  the  Court  of  Copenhagen,  the 
Prince  Royal  had  desired  to  speak  with  me  in  his  apartment. 
His  Royal  Highness  was  extremely  polite,  and  after  saying 
many  civil  things,  he  said  he  hoped  I  was  satisfied ,  with 
the  attention  that  had  been  shown  to  me,  since  my  arrival 
and  that  the  King  would  wish  to  give  me  some  mark  of  his 
esteem. 

"  'I  had  never  had  the  honor  of  rendering  any  service  to 
his  Majesty.' 

*'  *It  matters  not;  a  man  like  you  should  be  an  exception 
to  the  ordinary  rules;  you  have  shown  yourself  delicate, 
none  could  be  more  so  with  respect  to  our  flag;  everybody 
loves  you  here.' 

"I  took  leave  without  further  explanation.  I  have  felt 
myself  in  an  embarassing  situation,  on  account  of  the  King's 
patent,  and  I  have  as  yet  made  no  use  of  it,  although  three 
years  are  nearly  elapsed  since  I  received  it.  I  wished 
to  consult  you;  but  when  I  understood  you  would  not 
return  to  Europe,  I  consulted  Mr.  Short  and  Mr.  G.  Morris, 
who    both   gave    me    as   their   opinion,    that    I   might    with 


meant  war,  which  had  broken  out  between  Sweden  and  Denmark,  Russia 
aiding  the  latter. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         27 

propriety  accept  the  advantage  offered.  I  have,  in  con- 
sequence, determined  to  draw  the  sum  due;  and  I  think  you 
will  not  disapprove  of  this  step,  as  it  can  by  no  means 
weaken  the  claims  of  the  United  States;  but  rather  the 
contrary. '  "^ 

From  this  letter  it  is  clear  that  Bernstorff,  who  did  not 
wish  to  pay  an  indemnity  for  the  Bergen  prizes,  now  at 
least  wanted  to  be  on  friendly  terms  with  our  government. 
The  patent  given  to  Paul  Jones  was  evidently  given  for  the 
purpose  of  soothing  his  feelings  and  making  him  satisfied 
so  that  he  would  not  further  press  his  claims.  The  indi- 
viduals involved  in  the  case  being  satisfied  the  government 
of  the  United  States  would  naturally  drop  the  matter,  and 
the  whole  unfortunate  affair  would  be  forgotten.  For  some 
time,  at  any  rate,  the  matter  was  lost  sight  of,  but  we  shall 
meet  the  problem  again  at  a  future  date. 

6.     Ordination  of  Episcopalian  Ministers. 

In  1783  an  American  gentleman,  who  had  gone  to  London 
to  receive  ordination  as  a  clergyman  in  the  Episcopalian 
church,  wrote  to  John  Adams,  our  representative  at  The 
Hague,  stating  that  he  had  been  refused  ordination  by  the 
Bishop  of  London  and  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  be- 
cause he  would  not  take  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Eng- 
lish crown  as  required  of  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land. He  was  desirous  of  learning  whether  it  would  be 
possible  for  a  ministerial  candidate  to  "have  orders  from 
Protestant  Bishops  on  the  continent." 

Soon  afterwards  when  John  Adams  by  chance  met  M. 
de  St.  Saphorin,  the  Danish  envoy  to  The  Hague,  he  inquired 
for  the  sake  of  curiosity  what  stand  Denmark  would  take  on 
the  matter.  Although  Mr.  Adams  only  intended  this  to  be 
current  conversation,  the  Danish  envoy  referred  the  matter 
to  his  home  government  which  took  it  up  with  the  Faculty 
of  Theology  of  the  University  of  Copenhagen.  The  decision 
which  was  favorable,  was  transmitted  by  the  Danish  Privy 
Councillor,  Count  Rosencrone,  to  John  Adams  through  M. 
de    St.    Saphorin   in    the    form    of    regular    diplomatic    cor- 


62  ihid.,  Vol.  VII,  pp.  408-413. 


28        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

respondence  for  the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  It 
stated  that  candidates  for  the  Episcopalian  ministry  could 
be  ordained  in  Denmark  according  to  Danish  rites,  and 
without  taking  any  oath  of  allegiance.  The  services  would 
be  performed  in  Latin.'^  Adams  reported  the  matter  to  the 
president  of  Congress  on  April  22,  1784.  In  March,  1785, 
this  body  sent  a  communication  to  Adams  instructing  him 
to  thank  his  Danish  Majesty  through  M.  de  St.  Saphorin 
for  the  liberal  decision  rendered."^  It  does  not  appear,  how- 
ever, that  the  Episcopalian  clergy  in  America  ever  took 
advantage  of  the  offer. 


68  Ibid.,  Vol.  II,  pp.  127-130. 

6*  Secret  Journals  of  Congress,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  550. 


CHAPTER  II 

PROBLEMS   OF   THE   NAPOLEONIC  ERA,   1800-1815 

1.     Interchange  of  Representatives. 

As  early  as  1785  it  was  realized  by  the  United  States  that 
it  would  be  advantageous  to  have  a  regular  representative 
in  Copenhagen.  Congress  proposed  ''that  at  courts  where 
no  ministers  reside  the  charge  d'affaires  of  the  United  States 
be  empowered  to  exercise  the  duties  of  consul  general.  That 
consuls  shall  reside  at  Copenhagen."  The  proposal,  how- 
ever did  not  pass.^  Since  the  diplomatic  posts  at  Madrid, 
Berlin,  and  St.  Petersburg  were  filled  only  occasionally,  it 
could  not  be  expected  that  such  small  posts  as  that  at  Co- 
penhagen should  be  taken  care  of. 

Since  Denmark  discriminated  against  the  trade  of  nations 
which  had  no  relations  with  her  through  treaties  or  represen- 
tatives, American  Merchants  were  very  much  at  a  disad- 
vantage in  Danish  ports.  During  the  latter  half  of  Wash- 
ington's first  administration  Thomas  Jefferson,  the  Secretary 
of  State,  proposed  that  we  appoint  a  consul  to  be  located 
at  Copenhagen.  He  suggested  the  name  of  Hans  Rudolph 
Saaby,  a  wealthy  Danish  merchant.  Our  custom  had  been 
to  make  a  foreigner  only  vice-consul;  but  as  that  would  not 
be  in  harmony  with  Danish  custom,  the  higher  rank  was 
proposed,    and    Mr.    Saaby    was    appointed    March    6,    1792.^ 

During  the  early  days  of  our  national  existence  state  affairs 
were  negotiated  between  the  United  States  and  Denmark 
through  their  ministers  to  France.  Such  negotiations  were 
later  carried  on  in  London.  Thus  in  1799  a  question  of  an  alien 
inheritance  tax  was  handled  by  Rufus  King  and  Count  Wedel 
de  Jarlsberg,  the  representatives  at  the  court  of  St.  James, 


1  Secret  Journals  of  Congress,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  593-595. 

2  Writings  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  Vol.  V,  pp.  421-422;  J.  D.  Richardson, 
Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  Vol.  I,  p.  117. 


29 


30        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

from  the  United  States  and  Denmark  respectively.'  Den- 
mark, however,  realized  that  it  would  be  of  value  to  have  a 
representative  in  America;  and  on  November  23,  1800,  the 
American  government  was  informed  through  Rufus  King  that 
Sir  Blicher  Olson  would  be  sent  to  the  United  States  as 
Minister  Resident  and  Consul  General.* 

2.     The  Case  of  the  Brig  Hendrick. 

During  the  rupture  of  diplomatic  relations  between  the 
United  States  and  France,  following  the  X,  Y,  Z  affair,  sev- 
eral cases  arose  which  are  of  interest  in  the  present  narrative. 
It  appears  that  the  brig  Hendrick'^  under  Captain  Peter 
Scheelt,  of  Altona — which  at  that  time  was  under  Danish 
jurisdiction — sailed  from  Hamburg  for  Cape  Francois  in  the 
West  Indies.  On  October  3,  1799,  it  was  captured  by  a 
French  privateer,  and  on  October  8  it  was  recaptured  by 
the  American  sloop  of  war  Pickering  under  the  command  of 
Benjamin  Hillier  and  brought  into  the  port  of  Basseterre, 
in  the  British  island  of  St.  Christopher,  also  known  as  St. 
Kitts,  one  of  the  Leeward  Islands.  Here  the  American  cap- 
tors brought  it  before  the  British  court  of  Vice-Admiralty, 
which  ordered  that  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  United 
States  the  ship  should  be  sold  and  one-half  of  its  value 
awarded  to  the  captors  as  salvage,  while  the  other  half,  after 
deducting   court   expenses,   was  to   be   given   to   the   owners. 

Denmark  made  demands  on  the  United  States  for  the 
value  of  the  ship  and  its  cargo.  The  government  investigated 
the  case   and   found   that   the   British   admiralty   court   had 


8  Life  and  Correspondence  of  Sufus  King,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  161. 
*  rbid.,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  334-35,  338-339.  A  gentleman  by  the  name  of 
Campbell  had  presented  himself  to  Jefferson  as  minister  from  Denmark 
in  1790.  He  did  not  have  any  credentials  and  was  most  likely  an  ad- 
venturer. Jefferson  asked  WUliam  Short,  charge  d'affaires  at  Paris,  to 
inquire  of  Count  de  Blome  concerning  the  man,  but  it  does  not  appesur 
that  a  reply  was  received.  Writings  of  Thomas  Jeferson,  Vol.  V,  pp. 
235-236. 

6  We  use  the  Danish  form.  J.  B.  Moore  in  his  work  Intematiorutl  Arbi- 
trations, p.  4553,  evidently  makes  a  mistake  by  stating  that  there  was 
a  Henry  and  a  Hendrick  case.  These  are  without  doubt  the  English  and 
the  Danish  forms  of  the  name  of  the  same  vessel.  The  forms  Henrick 
and  Heinrich  also  appear  in  the  documents. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         31 

erred  in  its  interpretation  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States. 
The  rate  of  salvage  awarded  the  Americans  for  recapturing 
the  brig  from  the  French  privateers  had  been  adapted  from 
laws  of  the  United  States,  which  were  applicable  to  recap- 
tures of  American  property  and  of  such  as  belonged  to  belliger- 
ent powers  in  amity  with  the  United  States.  It  had  no  refer- 
ence to  recaptures  of  neutral  property.  It  was  found  that  in 
certain  peculiar  cases  of  danger,  a  proportionate  rate  of 
salvage  had  been  allowed  in  the  past  in  neutral  cases,  but 
this  case  was  different  because  the  vessel  was  bound  from  a 
neutral  port  to  a  French  port.  Having  been  captured  by 
a  French  vessel  it  would  therefore  not  be  in  danger.  The 
Danish  government  gave  proof  that,  for  a  year  preceding 
the  capture  of  the  Ilendrick,  most  vessels  carried  into  the 
French  island  Guadeloupe  had  been  released,  and  in  some 
cases  even  damages  had  been  paid.  Besides  Denmark  claimed 
that  the  rate  of  salvage  in  this  case  had  been  too  high.  It 
was  shown  that  the  vessel  and  cargo  were  worth  $44,500;  but 
after  satisfying  the  decree  of  salvage  and  paying  the  court 
expenses,  not  more  than  $8,374.41  was  left  for  the  owners. 

In  February,  1803,  President  Jefferson  laid  the  case  before 
Congress  and  recommended  that,  since  the  Danish  government 
had  observed  a  friendly  attitude  toward  the  United  States  and 
since  no  remedy  was  now  obtainable  in  the  ordinary  judicial 
course,  that  body  should  take  the  matter  under  consideration 
and  vote  an  appropriation  to  the  Danish  government  for  the 
loss  sustained.* 

In  accordance  with  the  President's  recommendation  to 
Congress,  the  House  very  soon  passed  a  bill  to  reimburse  Den- 
mark but  it  was  defeated  in  the  Senate.^  The  matter  was 
taken  up  in  the  next  Congress  but  with  the  same  result.* 
Denmark,  however,  did  not  drop  the  case.  She  claimed  that 
it  was  clearly  the  duty  of  the  United  States  to  pay  for  the 
vessel    since    even    the    officers    of    the    government    had    ac- 


6  American  State  Papers,  Foreign,  Eelations,  Vol.  II,  pp.  483-486,  609-612, 
Vol.  rv,  pp.  629-632. 

7  Annals  of  Congress,  7  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  pp.  264,  265,  268. 

8  Ibid.,  8  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  235,  236,  239,  252,  257,  261,  276,  552,  562, 
787,  798,  881,  883,  887. 


32         IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

knowledged  that  a  mistake  had  been  made.  The  commander 
of  the  Pickering  had  erred  in  taking  the  captured  vessel  be- 
fore a  British  court,  the  sentence  of  which  the  United  States 
had  no  power  to  review.  The  American  government  did  not 
deny  these  facts  but  was  impotent  in  the  matter  so  long  as 
Congress  failed  to  make  an  appropriation  for  the  purpose. 
The  reason  for  the  Senate's  action  became  evident  later. 

In  February,  1805,  President  Jefferson  again  laid  the 
matter  before  Congress  with  the  additional  documents  and 
arguments  Denmark  had  produced.  He  stated  that  the 
owners  of  the  Hendrick  were  entitled  to  relief  and  that  ac- 
cording to  the  policy  of  the  United  States  Congress  should 
make  provision  for  payment.®     As  a  result  the  following  bill 

was  introduced  in  Congress:     "Resolved:  that  the  sum  of 

dollars  ought  to  be  appropriated,  out  of  the  monies  in  the 
treasury,  not  otherwise  appropriated,  to  enable  the  president 
of  the  United  States  to  make  such  restitution  as  shall  appear 
to  be  just  and  equitable,  to  the  owners  of  the  Danish  brigan- 
tine  called  Hendrick,  and  her  cargo,  which  were  recaptured 
by  an  American  armed  vessel,  in  the  year  1799,  and  sold  by 
order  of  the  Vice  Admiralty  Court,  in  the  British  island  of 
St.  Christopher:  Provided;  the  Government  of  Denmark  shall 
make  compensation  for  the  seizure  of  certain  prizes,  captured 
by  the  armed  vessels  of  the  United  States,  during  the  late 
Revolutionary  war  with  Great  Britain  and  carried  into  the 
port  of  Bergen  in  the  year  1779,  and  which  by  order  of  the 
Danish  Government  were,  without  a  judicial  trial,  restored  to 
their  original  proprietors  "^° 

This  bill  like  its  two  predecessors  passed  the  House  but 
failed  in  the  Senate.  The  action  of  the  Senate  seems  hardly 
fair  as  the  bill  proposed  to  give  justice  to  Denmark  only  in 
case  she  paid  for  the  Bergen  prizes.  Congress  was  incident- 
ally reminded  of  the  latter  just  at  this  time.  Peter  Landais, 
the  French- American  commander  of  the  Alliance,  which  cap- 
tured the  three  prizes,  kept  pressing  his  claim  on  Congress. 


»  J.  D.  Richardson,  op.  oit.,  Vol.  I,  p.  .377.     For  the  documents  referred 
to,  see  State  Papers  and  Public  Documents,  1789-1815,  Vol.  V,  pp.  43-48. 

10  Annals  of  Congress,  9  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  476. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         33 

The  very  Congress  in  which  the  bill  just  quoted  was  presented 
voted  him  $4,000.00  to  be  subtracted  from  his  final  award.^^ 

As  long  as  the  United  States  government  continued  of  the 
opinion  that  her  claim  on  Denmark  was  fair,  it  is  evident  that 
the  Senate  was  unwilling  to  pay  indemnity  for  the  Hendrick 
until  a  prior  settlement  was  reached  about  the  Bergen  prizes. 
Since  the  Danish  government  steadfastly  refused  to  recognize 
that  claim,  the  Senate  would  not  move.  It  evidently  felt 
that  when  the  State  Department  should  reach  an  agreement 
with  Denmark  that  was  satisfactory  to  Congress,  there  would 
be  plenty  of  time  to  appropriate  money,  if  indeed  any  were 
needed. 

While  direct  evidence  is  lacking,  it  is  possible  that  an 
additional  reason  why  the  Senate  did  not  act  favorably  was 
the  fact  that  Denmark  had  recently  imposed  discriminating 
duties  highly  favorable  to  her  own  carrying  trade.^^  Each 
nation,  to  be  sure,  is  master  of  its  own  laws,  but  often  selfish 
laws  produce  friction,  or  at  least  prejudice,  between  other- 
wise friendly  powers. 

3.     Murray  vs.  Charming  Betsy. 

A  case  similar  to  the  one  just  mentioned  is  that  known  as 
Murray  vs.  Charming  Betsy.  An  American-built  vessel  called 
Jane  sailed  for  the  West  Indies  where  its  cargo  was  sold. 
Later  the  ship  itself  was  sold  to  Jared  Shattuck,  a  naturalized 
Danish  subject  in  St.  Thomas,  who  had  been  born  in  the  state 
of  Connecticut.  Under  the  new  ownership,  with  the  name 
changed  to  Charming  Betsy,  it  sailed  for  Guadeloupe  in  the 
French  West  Indies  and  was  seized  by  a  French  privateer. 
Later  it  was  recaptured  by  the  United  States  warship 
Constellation  under  Captain  Murray  and  taken  to  St.  Pierre 
in  Martinique.  Its  master  was  Thomas  Wright,  a  Scot  who 
had  also  become  a  Danish  citizen  residing  in  the  Danish  West 
Indies.  In  Martinique  Captain  Murray  sold  the  cargo  of  the 
Charming  Betsy  because  he  believed  Shattuck  was  an  Amer- 


11  Ihid.,  For  the  bill,  pp.  142,  143,  162,  164,  189,  191,  281,  476,  480, 
510,  516.  For  the  award,  435,  453,  516,  520,  779,  799,  824,  838.  See 
also  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  VI,  p.  61. 

12  American  State  Papers,  Commerce  and  Navigation,  Vol.  I,  p.  504. 


34        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

ican  citizen  carrying  on  an  unlawful  trade  with  the  French. 
After  that  he  took  the  ship  itself  to  Philadelphia. 

Jared  Shattuck  claimed  the  vessel  and  sued  to  gain  pos- 
session of  her  as  well  as  to  secure  damages  for  the  loss  of 
her  cargo.  The  case  was  tried  in  the  Federal  District  Court 
of  Pennsylvania  under  Judge  Peters,  who  awarded  the  ship 
and  damages  to  Shattuck  on  the  ground  that  he  was  a 
Danish  citizen.  This  conclusion  he  had  reached  from  the 
fact  that  Shattuck  was  holding  real  estate  in  St.  Thomas, 
which  according  to  Danish  Law  he  could  not  do  as  a  for- 
eigner. The  case  was  appealed  to  the  Circuit  Court  and 
finally  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  where  in 
February,  1804,  Chief  Justice  John  Marshall  handed  down 
a  decree  containing  the  following  points: 

(1)  Jared  Shattuck  was  before  the  law  a  Danish 
citizen,  hence  the  Charming  Betsy  was  Danish  prop- 
erty; 

(2)  the  American  recaptors  were  not  entitled  to 
salvage  because  the  vessel,  being  captured  on  her 
way  to  a  French  port  by  the  French,  was  not  in 
imminent  danger  of  condemnation; 

(3)  Captain  Murray  was  not  justified  in  breaking 
up  the  voyage  of  the  Charming  Betsy,  because  no 
American  citizen  has  a  right  to  interfere  with  the 
property  of  Danish  citizens  when  sailing  under 
neutral  flag  on  the  high  seas;  and 

(4)  Captain  Mlirray,  therefore,  must  release  the 
Charming  Betsy  to  Jared  Shattuck  and  pay  dam- 
ages.^^ 

This  case  arose  under  the  same  circumstances  as  the  case  of 
the  Hendrick.  The  reason  the  case  was  so  easily  settled  was 
because  the  sentence  of  the  court  was  directed  against  a 
private  individual,  who  could  not  take  advantage  of  the 
Bergen  prize  claim.  As  Captain  Murray  was  an  officer  in 
the  United  States  navy  and  as  such  had  acted  in  good  faith, 
it  was  natural  that   Congress  should  reimburse  his  loss.     In 


18  Murray  vs.  Charming  Betsy,  2  Crunch,  pp.  64-125. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         35 

1805  he  was  paid  the  original  amount  and  interest  by  the 
government.^* 

4,    Shattuck  vs.  Mtaley. 

This  ease  was  also  connected  with  the  name  of  Jared 
Shattuck  and  took  an  even  more  prominent  place  in  our 
diplomatic  relations  that  that  of  the  Charming  Betsy. 
Through  Richard  Soderstrom,  who  was  for  a  time  in  charge  of 
the  consular  affairs  pertaining  to  Denmark,  the  facts  of  the 
case  were  presented  to  our  foreign  department  in  June,  1801. 
In  1800  the  schooner  Mercator,  owned  by  Jared  Shattuck, 
laden  with  a  cargo  of  merchandise  and  consigned  to  Toussaint 
Lucas,  the  master  of  the  vessel,  sailed  from  St.  Thomas  for 
Jacmel  and  Port  Republican  in  the  island  of  St.  Domingo. 
The  cargo  was  valued  at  $13,920.  On  May  14  as  the  vessel 
was  entering  the  port  of  Jacmel,  it  was  met  by  the 
Experiment,  an  armed  schooner  of  the  United  States  navy 
under  the  command  of  Lieutenant  William  Maley.  The  Amer- 
ican commander  took  possession  of  the  Mercator  and  put  on 
board  of  her  a  prize-master  and  four  seamen  who  took  the 
vessel  to  some  place  not  known  to  the  owner.  The  ship  was 
never  brought  to  legal  adjudication  in  any  court  of  the  United 
States  to  the  knowledge  of  Jared  Shattuck.  In  the  petition 
to  the  State  Department  Mr.  Shattuck  asked  for  redress  of 
grievances. 

James  Madison,  our  Secretary  of  State,  informed  Soder- 
strom that  the  regular  way  to  handle  this  case  would  be 
through  the  courts  of  the  United  States.  Soderstrom  in  re- 
turn stated  that  in  Europe,  as  well  as  in  America,  such 
cases  were  often  settled  through  the  foreign  department.  In 
this  case,  he  added,  the  leading  individual  involved,  Lieu- 
tenant Maley,  was  insolvent  and  outside  of  the  United  States; 
therefore  it  would  be  difficult  to  pursue  the  case  to  any  ad- 
vantage in  the  courts.  To  this  Madison  replied  that  it  would 
be  best  to  follow  the  regular  procedure  and  that  suit  should 
be  brought  by  the  Minister  Resident  of  Denmark,  P.  Blicher 
Olson,    as    he    was    the    only    proper    organ    through    whom 


"  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.   VI,  p.   56. 


36         IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

Danish  subjects  could  demand  reclamation.^'  Accordingly  the 
case  was  taken  up  in  the  Federal  District  Court  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, appealed  to  the  Circuit  Court,  and  finally  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States.  In  his  usual  masterly  style  Chief 
Justice  John  Marshall  rendered  the  decision  in  1806.^^ 

In  the  trial  Maley  claimed  that  the  Mercator  was  an  Amer- 
ican vessel  carrying  on  an  illicit  trade  with  the  French  West 
Indies.  When  he  met  her  she  was  on  her  way  from  Balti- 
more to  Port-au-Prince,  a  place  in  the  possession  of  British 
troops,  although  her  papers  declared  she  was  proceeding  from 
St.  Thomas  to  Jacmel.  He  also  declared  that  the  name  of  the 
master  of  the  Mercator  indicated  that  he  was  a  Frenchman  or 
perhaps  an  Italian,  while  his  crew  were  largely  Portuguese. 
According  to  Danish  law  foreigners  could  not  legally  com- 
mand and  navigate  a  Danish  vessel.  He  further  declared 
that  Jared  Shattuck  was  an  American  who  had  gone  to  St. 
Thomas  to  carry  on  an  illicit  and  clandestine  commerce  with 
French  ports.  In  order  to  make  no  mistake  he  had  left 
undisturbed  the  papers  on  board  the  vessel,  and  had  sent  her  with 
an  officer  and  four  seamen  to  Cape  Francois  to  be  delivered  to 
Silas  Talbot,  then  commander  of  the  public  vessels  of  the  United 
States  in  those  waters,  with  instructions  that  she  should  be  de- 
livered to  her  master  if  Commodore  Talbot  cleared  her.  About  six 
hours  later  the  Mercator  was  captured  by  the  British  privateer 
General  Simcoe,  commanded  by  Joseph  Duval,  who  brought 
her  to  Jamaica  where  she  was  libeled  as  French  or  Spanish 
property  in  spite  |of  the  denial  of  Jared  Shattuck.  She 
was  condemned  as  a  lawful  prize  and  confiscated  to  the  cap- 
tors. Maley  therefore  contended  that  since  peace  existed  be- 
tween the  United  States,  Great  Britain  and  Denmark,  the 
Mercator  would  have  been  cleared  in  the  British  court  if  she 
had  been  Danish  property. 

Jared  Shattuck  presented  proof  that  though  born  in  Con- 
necticut he  was  a  Danish  citizen,  that  Port-au-Prince,  was  not 
held  by  the  British  but  by  General  Toussaint  L'OuverturC; 
that  all  the  papers  were  in  good  and  regular  order,  that  the 


15  American  State  Papers,  Foreign  Relation,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  344-347. 
i«  Maley   vs.    Shattuck,    3   Cranoh,   458. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         37 

master,  though  Italian  by  birth,  was  a  Danish  citizen,  and 
that  Danish  law  did  not  require  the  crew  of  a  vessel  under 
the  flag  of  Denmark  to  be  Danish  citizens  in  time  of  peace. 
The  District  Court  had  awarded  the  owner  $41,658.67.  This 
was  changed  in  the  Circuit  Court  to  $33,244.67,  From  this 
decree  Maley  appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  which  sustained  the  lower  court. 

While  Shattuek  had  won  his  case  in  the  courts  he  had  not 
yet  obtained  the  money.  As  Maley  was  an  officer  of  the  Navy 
and  insolvent,  the  government  was  asked  to  pay  the  damage. 
This  in  turn  necessitated  action  by  Congress.  Here  the  same 
difficulties  were  met  as  in  the  case  of  the  Hendrick.  In  1810 
the  Danish  Minister  Peder  Pedersen  requested  that  the  award 
of  the  court  be  paid.  By  a  Senate  resolution  the  President 
was  asked  to  lay  before  that  body  all  the  correspondence  and 
documents  connected  with  the  case.  This  was  done  but  the 
claim  was  not  paid,^^  for  other  circumstances  had  now  arisen, 
which  will  be  presented  in  a  later  connection. 

5.     Danish  Aid  in  Tripoli. 

While  the  cases  mentioned  above  were  pending,  the  United 
States  was  involved  in  what  is  known  as  the  Tripolitan  War. 
Several  times  Americans  had  been  captured  and  imprisoned 
in  Tripoli.  The  consul  of  Denmark,  Nicholas  C.  Nissen,  re- 
siding at  Tripoli  did  all  in  his  power  to  aid  the  Americans. 
In  1802  Andrew  Morris,  captain  of  the  brig  Franklin  wrote  to 
a  friend:  ''Through  the  interference  of  Mr.  Nissen,  his  Danish 
Majesty's  consul  here,  I  have  the  liberty  of  the  town."  When 
in  the  year  1803  Captain  William  Bainbridge  was  captured 
with  the  officers  and  crew  of  the  ship  Philadelphia  and  im- 
prisoned under  such  conditions  that  it  was  impossible  for 
them  to  procure  the  necessary  food  and  clothing.  Mr.  Nissen 
took  care  of  the  American  prisoners  for  more  than  nineteen 
months,  part  of  the  time  at  his  own  expense.^^  In  sending 
a  request  to  Commodore  Samuel  Barron  for  a  person  to  come 
ashore,   Bainbridge  suggested  that  it  would  be  best  for  that 


17  Senate   Jouriial,    9-11    Cong.,    Vol.    IV,    p.    466;    Annals    of    Congress, 
(1810),  11  Cong.,  Pt.  II,  pp.  2158-2166. 

18  American  State  Papers,  Naval  Affairs,  Vol.  1,  pp.  122-124,  150-151. 


38        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

individual  to  come  under  the  guaranty  of  the  Danish  consul 
as  he  was  "a  man  of  unquestionable  integrity"  and  was 
"actuated  by  a  desire  to  serve,^* 

The  negotiations  between  Tobias  Lear,  commander  of  the 
United  States  frigate  Constitution,  and  the  Bashaw  of  Tripoli, 
which  led  in  1805  to  the  final  settlement  of  the  Tripolitan 
trouble  "were  also  carried  on  through  the  Danish  consul.^" 
It  was  therefore  natural  that  Congress  should  show  its  appre- 
ciation by  passing  a  joint  resolution  in  1806  thanking  Nicholas 
C.  Nissen  for  his  disinterested  services.^^ 

6.    Danish  Spoliation  of  American  Commerce. 

The  treaty  of  Tilsit  in  1807  created  a  situation  in  which 
England  was  forced  to  act  quickly  and  effectively.  Con- 
sequently she  demanded  of  Denmark  that  her  navy  should 
be  surrendered  to  the  safe  keeping  and  control  of  the 
British  fleet,  but  promised  that  it  would  be  restored  after 
the  war.  As  England  probably  expected,  Denmark  rejected 
the  proposition  as  it  would  make  her  a  vassal  of  her  pow- 
erful neighbor  to  the  west.  Great  Britain,  however,  was 
confronted  with  a  situation  which  had  to  be  settled  without 
delay.  As  a  result,  on  September  2,  1807,  she  bombarded 
Copenhagen  and  forced  the  surrender  of  the  Danish  fleet, 
consisting  of  twenty-two  ships  of  the  line,  ten  frigates,  and 
forty-two  smaller  vessels.^^ 

The  natural  outcome  of  this  action  was  that  Denmark 
joined  France  in  her  war  against  England.  A  large  num- 
ber of  privateers  were  fitted  out  for  the  express  purpose  of 
preying  on  the  English  Baltic  trade,  which  was  being  carried 
on  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  Alexander  I  of  Russia  had  joined 
Napoleon.  By  a  royal  order  issued  at  Rendsborg  on  Sep- 
tember 14,  1807,  Danish  privateers  were  instructed  to  bring 
into   port   all  English   vessels   and   property   of   any  kind.^' 


19  State  Papers  and  Public  Documents,  Vol.  V.  p.  412. 

20  American  State  Papers,  Foreign  Affairs,  Vol.  II,  pp.  717-718. 

21  Annals  of  Congress,  9.  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  1296. 

22  Cambridge  Modem  History,  Vol.  IX,  pp.  237-39,  243,  294-300,  344. 

23  American  State  Papers,  Foreign  Relations,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  327-328;  Law 
of  September  14,  1807.     See  Bibliography. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         39 

This  order  made  it  very  hazardous  for  English  vessels  to 
ply  through  the  Danish  Sound  and  Belts. 

England  tried  very  hard  to  continue  her  trade,  and  a 
large  number  of  her  merchantmen  sailed  under  armed  convoy. 
The  demands  on  the  British  navy,  however,  were  so  great 
that  it  was  impossible  to  protect  her  whole  merchant  marine; 
consequently  a  large  number  of  vessels  found  it  necessary 
to  protect  themselves  by  posing  as  neutrals.  With  false 
papers  and  under  the  flag  of  the  United  States,  the  only 
nation  that  was  neutral,  they  attempted  to  deceive  the 
Danish  privateers.  As  a  result  Denmark  felt  obliged  to 
take  measures  to  capture  all  ships  under  false  flag.  This 
course,  of  necessity,  carried  with  it  the  danger  of  seizing 
a  large  number  of  vessels  that  were  truly  neutral,  and  of 
trying  them  under  the  smallest  and  flimsiest  pretexts  pos- 
sible. To  this  danger  was  added  the  fact  that  the  captains 
and  crews  of  privateers  shared  a  great  part  of  the  booty 
thus  obtained,  which  made  them  greedy  to  capture  vessels 
and  secure  their  condemnation  no  matter  whether  they  were 
enemy  or  neutral. 

It  was  under  these  circumstances  that  in  July,  1809, 
forty-three  American  citizens  in  Christiansand,  Norway,  pe- 
titioned the  President  of  the  United  States  for  aid,  since 
they  had  been  captured  by  Norwegian  privateers,  subject  to 
Denmark,  while  pursuing  their  lawful  business.  They  ad- 
mitted that  many  Americans  had  connived  with  England  to 
cheat  Denmark,  and  that  England  was  fitting  out  her  vessels 
to  look  like  those  of  the  United  States;  yet  they  felt  that 
they  had  not  been  treated  fairly  in  the  courts  of  Norway. 
Hven  though  they  had  proved  in  court  that  their  property 
was  neutral,  their  voyage  legal,  and  their  capture  conse- 
quently illegal,  yet  they  had  been  forced  to  pay  from  400 
to  600  rixdollars  to  their  captors.  The  American  consul, 
Mr.  Saabye,  of  Copenhagen,  had  been  unable  to  aid  them. 
They  hoped  for  help  from  America  as  they  were  liable  to 
starve.  They  also  recommended  that  the  President  make  a 
certain  Peter  Isaacsen,  who  had  given  them  much  aid, 
American  consul  in  Norway.^* 

24  Ibid.,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  328-333;  State  Papers  arul  Public  Documents, 
Vol.  VII,  pp.  314-330. 


40        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

Closely  following  upon  this  request  came  a  communication 
to  the  State  Department  from  Peter  Isaaesen  himself,  dated 
August  11,  1809.  In  this  he  stated  that  there  were  twenty- 
six  American  vessels  held  captive  in  Norway  at  that  time. 
Eighteen  of  these  had  been  tried  and  eight  were  still  await- 
ing trial.  Of  the  eighteen,  eight  had  been  cleared  and  ten 
condemned.  He  explained  that  England  had  used  every  con- 
ceivable means  to  deceive  Denmark,  so  that  navigation  had 
practically  ceased  to  be  considered  an  honest  business.  False, 
falsified  or  double  sets  of  papers  were  so  common  that  the 
strictest  inquiry  was  absolutely  necessary  to  ascertain  the 
true  identity  of  a  vessel.  This  was  the  cause  of  the  hard- 
ships experienced  by  American  sailors  in  Norway.  He 
promised  to  watch  over  the  interests  of  Americans  as  well 
as  circumstances  would  permit.^^ 

In  October  of  the  same  year,  the  American  consul  at 
Copenhagen  sent  a  list  of  fifty-one  ships,  which  were 
claimed  by  Americans  but  which  had  been  captured  by 
Danish  privateers.  Twenty-one  of  these  had  been  condemned, 
and  the  cases  of  all  but  two  of  these  had  been  appealed 
to  a  higher  court.  Twenty-two  liad  been  cleared.  Seven 
had  been  cleared  in  the  prize  courts  but  the  captors  had 
appealed  the  cases.  One  was  still  pending.  About  the 
same  time,  also,  seventy  individuals  and  firms  sent  a  com- 
munication from  Philadelphia  in  which  they  claimed  loss 
for  damages  sustained  as  a  result  of  Danish  privateering. 
They  requested  the  government  to  intervene  in  their  behalf.^* 

By  this  time  Denmark  had  become  aware  that,  though 
her  privateers  were  doing  effective  work  in  disturbing  Brit- 
ish trade  in  the  Baltic,  they  were  also  shutting  off  the  im- 
portation of  food  supplies  to  Norway.  On  August  6,  1809, 
Prince  Christian  August  wrote  to  the  King  of  Denmark  that 
the  conditions  in  Norway  were  very  serious  and  that  he 
believed  a  prohibition  of  privateering  would  be  advantageous. 
The  king  replied  that  he  had  already  repealed  the  order  of 
September  14,  1807,  until  further  notice.^^     It  was  hoped  that 


25  American  State  Papers,  Foreign  Belations,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  330-331. 

26  Ibid.,  Vol.   Ill,  pp.   332-333. 

27  J.   V.   Raeder,  Danmarks  Krigshistorie,  1807-1809.   Vol.   Ill,   pp.   534- 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         41 

the  prohibition  of  privateering  would  cause  England  to  al- 
low ships  to  enter  Norwegian  harbors,  but  it  had  the  op- 
posite effect.  The  English  war  vessels  that  had  been  busy 
fighting  Danish  privateers  were  now  employed  to  blockade 
the  Norwegian  ports.  It  was  therefore  of  no  use  for  the 
Danish  government  to  offer  a  bonus  of  two  and  one-half 
rixdoUars  for  each  ton  of  food  shipped  to  Norway.^^ 

Denmark  now  made  a  very  wise  move.  On  December  10, 
1809,  she  established  peace  with  England's  ally,  Sweden,  in 
the  treaty  of  Jonkjobing.  This  made  it  possible  for  Norway 
to  secure  food  through  Sweden  and  immediately  the  Danish 
privateers  were  sent  out  to  harass  English  shipping,^^  This 
explains  President  Madison's  statement  to  Congress  in  his 
annual  message  December  5,  1810,  to  the  effect  that:  "The 
commerce  of  the  United  States  with  the  North  of  Europe, 
hitherto  much  vexed  by  licentious  cruisers,  particularly 
under  the  Danish  flag,  has  lately  been  visited  with  fresh 
and  extensive  depredations.^" 

In  view  of  these  conditions  in  Europe,  the  American  gov- 
ernment soon  realized  that  it  was  necessary  to  have  a  rep- 
resentative in  Copenhagen.  It  was  therefore  decided  to  send 
George  W.  Erving  as  special  envoy  to  the  Danish  govern- 
ment. As  soon  as  he  arrived  at  his  post  he  got  in  touch 
with  the  Danish  Premier,  Baron  Rosenkrantz,  who  also  had 
charge  of  foreign  affairs.  Erving  requested  that  the  action 
of  Danish  prize  courts  be  temporarily  suspended  in  Amer- 
ican cases  in  order  that  more  definite  knowledge  might  be 
obtained  concerning  each  case  before  them.  This  request 
was  made  'on  June  6,  1811,  shortly  after  he  arrived  in 
Copenhagen.  At  the  same,  time  he  sent  to  Baron  Rosen- 
krantz two  lists  of  captured  American  ships,  the  cases  of- 
which  were  pending  before  the  Danish  courts.  The  first 
list  containing  the  names  of  twelve  ships,  dealt  with  vessels, 
concerning  ten  of  which  there  was  no  question  in  regard  to 


536.     Saabye  in  his  report,  mentioned  in  the  text,  stated  that  the  order 
was  repealed  August  1,  1809. 

28  Ibid.,  pp.   570,  589. 

29  Ibid.,  pp.  629-689,  passim. 

30  American  State  Papers,  Foreign  Belations,  Vol.  I,  p.  77. 


42        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

nationality.  They  had  been  captured  under  "clause  'D'  of 
the  eleventh  article  of  the  royal  instructions  of  March  10, 
1810,  declaring  as  a  cause  of  condemnation,  'the  making  use 
of  English  convoy.'  "  The  second  list  was  made  up  of 
sixteen  ships  which  had  been  captured  because  among  their 
papers  were  French  certificates  of  origin,  that  were  sup- 
posed to  be  forgeries,  as  Denmark  had  been  informed  by 
France  that  French  consuls  in  America  had  been  ordered 
to  discontinue  issuing  them."^ 

Erving  did  not  wait  to  receive  a  reply  to  this  letter,  but 
on  the  following  day  sent  another  note  to  Baron  Rosen- 
krantz  in  which  he  entered  more  fully  into  the  problem  of 
the  ships  under  English  convoy,  henceforth  referred  to  as 
the  "convoy  cases."  Two  of  the  twelve  were  laden  with 
goods  for  England  and  no  contention  was  made  for  them. 
The  other  ten,  however,  were  on  their  way  from  Baltic 
ports  to  America.  They  had  passed  the  Sound  and  paid 
the  Sound  Dues.  When  they  entered  the  Cattegat  they  had 
been  arrested  by  a  British  naval  force  and  "compelled  to 
join  convoy."  He  contended  that  the  Danish  instructions 
of  March  10,  1810,  were  unfair  and  contrary  to  international 
law  in  this  instance  because  they  did  not  take  into  con- 
sideration the  circumstances  that  had  brought  the  ships 
under  the  enemy  convoy.  He  asked  the  Danish  authorities 
to  cite  "examples  of  the  practice  of  nations"  to  support  the 
legality  of  the  instructions.  On  the  other  hand  he  claimed 
that  even  England  had  never  gone  so  far  as  to  condemn 
a  vessel  on  the  mere  ground  that  it  had  been  captured 
under  enemy  convoy.  He  called  Denmark's  attention  to  the 
brave  fight  she  herself  had  undertaken  to  maintain  the  rights 
of  neutrals  in  1780  and  1800,  and  he  closed  the  letter  with 
expressing  the  hope  that  justice  might  be  done,  which  would 
be  so  much  easier  in  this  case  because  the  vessels  had  been 
captured  by  national  ships  and  not  by  privateers.'* 

On  June  28,  1811,  Erving  received  a  reply  from  Rosen- 
krantz.  After  expressing  his  satisfaction  because  friendly 
feeling  had  always  existed  between  Denmark  and  the  United 


81  Ibid.,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.   522-523. 

82  Ibid.,  Vol.  ni,  pp.  524-525. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         43 

States,  Rosenkrantz  went  on  to  explain  the  cases  involved 
in  their  correspondence.  In  regard  to  the  "French  certifi- 
cates of  origin"  it  was  now  clear  that  the  cases  rested  on 
a  misunderstanding.  On  September  22,  1810,  the  French 
government  had  informed  Denmark  that  the  consuls  in 
America  had  been  instructed  not  to  issue  them.  It  now 
appeared  these  orders  had  not  reached  the  consuls  in  Amer- 
ica until  November  13.  The  Danish  government  had  there- 
fore ordered  her  judges  of  admiralty  courts  not  to  adjudge 
French  certificates  as  evidence  against  the  ships,  providing 
they  were  issued  prior  to  that  date.  In  regard  to  the  **  con- 
voy cases"  the  Danish  government  felt  that  the  rule  laid 
down  in  the  instructions  must  be  followed,  as  enemy  convoy 
destroyed  their  neutral  character.  He  held  that  this  prin- 
ciple was  just  and  would  even  be  enforced  if  a  Danish  vessel 
should  use  English  convoy.  He  called  Erving's  attention  to 
the  fact  that  at  the  time  when  all  other  European  ports 
were  closed  to  American  vessels  those  of  Denmark  were 
open.  This  should  convince  the  United  States  that  Denmark 
desired  their  friendship  and  was  doing  nothing  from  hostile 
motives.^' 

In  answer  to  this  communication  Erving  immediately  re- 
plied that  he  was  thankful  for  the  spirit  expressed,  which, 
of  course,  he  had  expected  knowing  the  general  trend  of 
the  Danish  court.  He  was  sorry,  however,  that  the  Danish 
prize  courts  did  not  always  follow  the  spirit  of  His  Majesty, 
and  he  mentioned  the  decision  of  the  High  Court  on  March 
11th,  1811,  in  the  Swift  case  in  which  a  vessel  had  been  con- 
demned on  the  sole  statements  of  the  privateers,  who,  it  had 
been  proved,  had  perjured  themselves.  American  evidence  was 
not  admitted  in  this  trial.  He  was  unable,  however,  to  agree 
with  the  arguments  given  in  the  "convoy  cases."  The  United 
States  would  not  dispute  the  right  of  Denmark  to  enforce  the 
instructions  of  March  10,  1810,  on  her  own  citizens;  but  it 
was  quite  a  different  matter  when  other  nations  were  involved. 
In  fact  it  was  inconceivable  that  a  Danish  ship,  subject  to 
capture  by  the  British,  could  be  found  under  British  convoy. 


88  Ibid.,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  525-527. 


44        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

Such  a  ship  would  be  carrying  enemy  property  and  would 
therefor  be  guilty  of  treason.  It  would  merit  the  severest 
punishment.  He  insisted  that  the  words  ''using  convoy"  in 
the  royal  instructions  must  surely  be  construed  to  mean 
"voluntary  convoy,"  and  could  thus  not  cover  the  "convoy 
cases."  To  condemn  vessels  under  such  unfortunate  cir- 
cumstances would  not  be  a  just  course  for  any  power  to 
pursue  toward  a  friendly  neutral. 

In  spite  of  this  strong  reasoning,  Rosenkrantz  declared  in 
his  next  communication  that  His  Majesty  could  not  make  any 
change  in  his  instructions  to  his  privateers.  Any  American 
vessel  under  the  convoy  of  British  war  vessels,  if  captured 
in  the  future  by  Danish  ships,  would  be  considered  a  lawful 
prize.  No  European  power  had  called  in  question  the  justice 
of  this  rule.  In  later  correspondence  Erving  showed  that 
two  of  the  "convoy  cases"  were  ships  that  had  been  captured 
by  Denmark  and  released  by  the  Danish  courts  because  their 
neutrality  was  fully  established.  It  was  thus  clear  that  the 
vessel  had  not  voluntarily  joined  convoy.  In  the  case  of  the 
Hope,  Captain  Rhea,  the  British  commander,  Charles  Dash- 
wood  of  H.  M.  S.  Pyramus,  had  boarded  the  vessel  and  entered 
on  the  ship's  papers  that  he  had  ordered  her  to  join  convoy 
to  prevent  her  going  to  an  enemy's  port  with  provisions  and 
to  prevent  her  from  being  captured  by  England's  enemies.** 

In  Erving 's  report  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  he  made  a 
summary  of  the  arguments  that  he  had  put  before  the  Danish 
government  in  behalf  of  the  Americans.  The  most  flagrant 
violations  made  by  Denmark  were  those  connected  with  the 
"convoy  eases."  He  enclosed  tabulated  reports  of  the  sit- 
uation of  American  claims  which   show  the   following   status 

on  May  30,   1811: 

Captures    in    1809_-. 63 

Captures  in  1810 124 

Total 187 

Cleared 114 

Condemned     .  ~  31 

Pending    14 


»*  Ibid.,   Vol.   Ill,   pp.    527-529;    State   Papers   and  Public   Doauments, 
1789-1816,  Vol.  VIII,  pp.  307-308. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         45 

Condemned  cases  of  a  desperate  character. ^ 16 

Cases  transferred  to  Paris 2 

Convoy    cases    pending . 10 

Total 187 

As  privateering  at  this  date  was  still  going  on,  the  number 
swelled  to  much  greater  proportions.^^ 

Because  many  vessels  had  been  condemned  and  sold  by 
Danish  prize  courts,  and  because  it  was  impossible  to  re- 
verse such  action,  Erving,  finally  on  November  4,  1811,  pre- 
sented reclamation  claims  to  the  Danish  government.  His 
communication  was  soon  after  answered  by  Baron  Rosen- 
krantz  who  sent  a  counter-claim  to  Mr.  Erving  for  the 
Hendrick  and  the  Mercator  cases,  which  have  been  described 
above.  Soon  after  this  Rosenkrantz  sent  a  direct  reply  to 
Erving 's  note  of  November  4,  the  gist  of  which  was  that  as 
Denmark  had  been  fair  in  her  prize  decisions  it  would  be 
impossible  to  pay  for  the  condemned  vessels.  Erving 's  counter- 
reply  was  clear  and  straightforward.  He  reminded  the  Danish 
government  that  in  the  two  cases  mentioned  the  United  States 
had  broken  no  international  law,  but  that  the  cases  had  arisen 
through  error  of  officers,  for  which  errors  Denmark  might  yet 
expect  to  receive  redress.  The  action  of  Denmark,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  a  direct  violation  of  the  laws  of  nations.  If  this 
were  not  so,  he  had  invited  the  Dainish  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  to  discuss  the  principle  upon  which  the  reclamation 
was  founded.  *'Can  it  be  deemed  to  be  a  satisfactory  answer 
to  such  a  reclamation  that  other  nations  have  submitted  to 
similar  decisions'?  Can  it  be  imagined  that  the  term  'defini- 
tive' as  applied  to  such  decisions  is  conclusive  against  the 
United  States?  Can  it  be  expected  that  they  will  acquiesce  in 
a  decision  as  just,  because  it  is  termed  'definitive'?"  He  ex- 
plained that  the  various  governmental  instruments,  such  as 
courts,  were  created  by  the  sovereign  who  was  responsible  for 
their  action.  When  a  foreign  nation  was  injured  by  a  tribunal, 
the  sovereign  could  not  refer  it  for  justice  to  the  instrument 


35  Ibid.,  Vol.  VII,  pp.  314-342;  Ibid.,  Vol.  VIII,  pp.  205-233,  305-323; 
American  State  Papers,  Foreign  Belations,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  521-536,  557-567. 
These  references  give  the  correspondence  and  the  reports  in  full. 


46        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

that  caused  the  complaint.  "What  is  this  but  to  adopt  the 
injustice  complained  of?"  Once  the  decisions  of  courts  were 
made  the  controversy  was  no  longer  between  individuals,  the 
ship-owners  and  the  privateers,  hut  between  the  American 
government  and  the  Danish  king.  As  Denmark  could  rest 
assured  that  America  would  pursue  her  reclamation  claim,  he 
hoped  that  a  plan  might  be  adopted  which  would  satisfy  our 
government. 

In  a  very  conciliatory  note  of  May  8,  1812,  Rosenkrantz 
declared  to  Erving  that,  if  it  could  be  proven  that  American 
subjects  had  just  cause  for  complaints,  his  Danish  majesty 
would  be  very  willing  to  redress  their  grievances.  From  this 
statement  it  would  appear  that  the  Danish  foreign  minister 
did  not  recognize  that  'it  had  become  a  government  affair 
only." 

The  last  communication  from  George  W.  Erving  to  Baron 
Rosenkrantz  was  dated  April  18,  1812.  As  stated,  Rosenkrantz' 
reply  came  May  8.  Soon  after  this  Erving  left  Copenhagen 
for  Paris  and  the  United  States  consul  at  Hamburg,  John  M. 
Forbes,  was  sent  as  charge  d'affaires  to  take  care  of  the  few 
cases  that  were  still  pending  before  the  courts  of  Denmark. 
As  the  War  of  1812  started  in  June,  the  Danish  situation  nat- 
urally became  a  minor  affair  compared  with  the  task  of  fight- 
ing England.  At  the  same  time  it  became  impossible  for 
American  merchantmen  to  sail  the  high  seas.  Consequently 
Danish  spoliation  stopped  for  lack  of  material  to  capture. 
For  the  time  being  our  claims  on  Denmark  lay  dormant.  In 
a  later  chapter  the  adjudication  of  the  spoliation  claims  will 
be  taken  up.*^ 


8«  state  Papers  and  Public  Documents.     Vol.  IX,  pp.  90-119. 

«»  Erving 's  correspondence  concerning  the  Danish  spoliation  is  also  found 
in  Annals  of  Congress,  12  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Pt.  II,  pp.  1980-2016,  and  12 
Cong.,  2  Sess.,  pp.  1201-1222. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  NEGOTIATION  OF  TREATIES  AND  THE  SETTLE- 
MENT  OF    CLAIMS,    1815-1847 

Although  the  international  relations  that  have  been  traced 
in  the  two  preceding  chapters  covered  a  period  of  more  than 
forty  years,  during  which  time  a  large  number  of  disagree- 
ments had  arisen,  yet  friendly  relations  continued  to  exist. 
This  state  of  affairs  could  hardly  be  expected  to  continue, 
however,  unless  a  settlement  of  the  disputed  points  could  be 
reached.  It  is  the  solution  of  these  problems  that  will  be  set 
forth  in  this  chapter. 

1.  Danish  Claims  against  the  United  States. 
Denmark's  efforts  to  obtain  satisfaction  for  the  loss  of  the 

Mercator  and  the  Hendrick  have  already  been  set  forth.  In 
1812  she  renewed  the  claim  in  behalf  of  Jared  Shattuck  for 
the  loss  of  the  Mercator.  A  bill  was  introduced  in  Congress  by 
the  committee  on  claims,  proposing  that  relief  should  be  given. 
This  bill  passed  both  houses;  but  as  no  further  trace  of  it 
appears  anywhere,  it  is  probable  that  it  was  handed  to  the 
president  for  his  signature  at  the  close  of  the  session  and  dis- 
posed of  by  a  ''pocket  veto",^ 

In  December,  1819,  President  Monroe  laid  before  Congress 
the  case  of  the  brig  Hendrick,  for  which  Denmark  had  re- 
newed her  claim,  through  her  minister  at  Washington  and 
C.  N.  Buck,  consul-general  of  Hamburg  at  Philadelphia.  The 
case  was  taken  up  in  the  Senate  but  reported  unfavorably  on 
account  of  existing  claims  of  the  United  States  against  Den- 
mark.^ 

2.  The  Treaty  of  1826. 

It  was  a  rule  of  Denmark  to  discriminate  against  nations 


1  Annals  of  Congress,  12  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  pp.  54,  64,  65,  66,  67,  197,  844, 
849. 

2  American  State  Papers,  Foreign  Belations,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  629-632;  Annais 
of  Congress,  16  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  39,  801,  891,  1169,  2253-2259. 

47 


48         IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

with  which  she  had  no  treaty  relations,  by  putting  higher 
duties  on  goods  imported  from  them  than  was  placed  on  im- 
ports from  countries  with  which  treaties  were  established.  It 
was  for  this  reason  that  Washington  in  1792  placed  a  consul 
at  Copenhagen.^  This  action,  did  not  remove  the  discriminat- 
ing duties.*  Several  times  the  United  States  government  was 
reminded  by  her  consuls  at  that  port  that  our  merchants  were 
paying  half  again  as  high  duties  as  those  of  Great  Britain, 
Holland,  France  and  the  other  nations  which  had  treaties  with 
Denmark.' 

It  seems  probable  that  this  situation  caused  the  United 
States  to  take  active  steps  to  bring  about  treaty  relations.  Just 
how  much  preliminary  correspondence  passed  between  the  two 
governments  before  a  treaty  was  finally  made  we  cannot  say, 
for  the  dispatches  in  the  archives  at  Copenhagen  covering 
the  period  1821-1829  do  not  even  mention  that  correspondence 
had  been  carried  on ;  but  on  April  26,  a  "  Convention  of  Friend- 
ship, Commerce  and  Navigation"  was  concluded  between  Peder 
Pedersen,  the  Minister  Resident  of  Denmark  at  Washington, 
and  Henry  Clay,  the  American  Secretary  of  State. 

The  treaty  of  1826,  which,  with  a  few  changes,  is  still  in 
force,  consists  of  twelve  articles  touching  on  the  most  vital 
points  of  international  relations.  In  brief  outline  the  contents 
are  as  follows:  Article  I,  contained  the  most  favored  nations 
clause.  Article  II,  provided  that,  the  coasting  trade  excepted  there 
should  be  freedom  of  trade  between  the  two  countries.  By 
Article  III,  mutual  privileges  were  established  in  regard  to 
importation,  exportation,  and  re-exportation  of  all  articles, 
which  might  be  lawfully  handled  in  the  respective  countries. 
The  duties  of  one  country  upon  vessels  of  the  other  should 
not  be  higher  than  on  native  vessels.  Article  IV,  provided 
that  duties  and  prohibitions  should  not  be  placed  on  imports 
and  exports  between  the  two  countries  unless  the  same  became 
equally  binding  on  other  powers.     Article  V  declared  that,  in 


8  Writings  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  Vol.  V,  p.  421. 

*  Ibid.,  Vol.  VI,  p.  476. 

6  American   State  Papers,   Commeroe   and  Navigation,   Vol.   I,   p.    504; 

Ibid.,  Vol.  n,  pp.  353,  367. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         49 

regard  to  the  duties  in  the  Sound  and  Belts,  the  United 
States  should  be  on  the  same  basis  as  the  most  favored  nations. 
Article  VI  stated  that  the  convention  should  not  pertain  to 
the  northern  possessions  of  Denmark  nor  to  the  direct  trade 
between  Denmark  and  the  Danish  West  Indies.  According  to 
Article  VII,  taxation  in  either  country,  in  case  of  removal 
of  the  respective  subjects  of  the  other,  should  not  be  higher 
than  that  paid  by  its  own  citizens.  By  Article  VIII,  mutual 
exchange  of  consular  representatives  on  the  basis  of  the  most 
favored  nations  clause  was  to  be  established.  It  was  provided 
by  Article  IX  that,  exequatur  having  been  granted,  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  two  powers  should  be  recognized  by  all  authori- 
ties and  inhabitants  in  the  district  where  they  resided.  Accord- 
ing to  Article  X,  consuls,  and  their  foreign  servants,  should 
be  exempted  from  services  and  taxes,  and  the  archives  of  the 
consulate  should  be  inviolable.  Article  XI  declared  that  the 
convention  should  be  in  force  for  ten  years,  and  further  until 
the  end  of  one  year  after  either  party  gave  notice  to  terminate 
it.  Under  Article  XII,  ratifications  were  to  be  exchanged 
within  eight  months.^ 

Before  the  Secretary  of  State  was  willing  to  affix  his  signa- 
ture to  this  document,  he  sent  a  note  to  Chevalier  Pedersen, 
Minister  Eesident  from  Denmark,  to  the  effect  that  this  treaty 
should  not  be  interpreted  to  mean  that  the  United  States 
waived  her  claims  for  indemnities  due  to  her  citizens  from  the 
Danish  government.  The  minister  was  requested  to  transmit 
the  note  to  Denmark  together  with  the  text  of  the  treaty.  Upon 
the  acknowledgment  of  the  receipt  of  this  note  by  Pedersen, 
Henry  Clay  signed  the  treaty.'^ 

Soon  after  the  treaty  was  ratified  Steen  Bille  took  up  the 
work  of  Chevalier  Pedersen  as  Danish  representative  at  Wash- 
ington. In  November,  1826,  Henry  Clay  inquired  of  him 
whether  he  had  received  any  information  as  to  the  interpreta- 
tion that  Denmark  placed  on  Article  VII  of  the  treaty.     It 


e  W.  M,  Malloy,  Treaties,  etc.,  Vol.  I,  pp.  373-377.     American  State  Pa- 
pers, Foreign  Belations,  Vol.  V,  pp.  905-907,  Department  of  Foreign  Af- 
fairs.   Philadelphia  Beretninger  18X1-18Z9.    Nordamerika  II.    Bapporter. 
(American  dispatches,  package  2.    Rigsarkivet,  Copenhagen.) 
7  American  State  Papers,  Foreign  Belations,  Vol.  V.,  p.  907. 


50        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

had  been  rumored  in  the  United  States  that  American  citizens 
could  not  remove  their  property  from  the  islands  without 
paying  the  tax  known  as  "sixths"  and  "tenths."  It  was  ex- 
pressly for  the  benefit  of  these  citizens  that  the  clause  had  been 
inserted.  Steen  Bille  answered  immediately  that  he  had  an- 
ticipated such  fears,  and  as  soon  as  he  arrived  he  informed 
his  government  of  the  interpretation  that  might  be  made  by 
the  authorities  of  the  islands.  He  had  received  answer  that  the 
Danish  government  well  understood  why  the  article  was  in- 
cluded in  the  treaty.  Americans  could  rest  assured  that  noth- 
ing would  be  done  which  would  defeat  the  original  intent.* 

3.  The  Arbitration  Treaty  of  1830. 

In  pursuance  of  the  intention  to  press  our  claims  against 
Denmark,  the  House  of  Representatives  in  May,  1826,  requested 
the  Secretary  of  State  to  lay  before  it  a  full  report  of  the 
claims  for  indemnity  due  from  that  country.  This  report, 
given  in  January,  1827,  revealed  that  there  were  in  all  167 
claims  amounting  to  $2,662,280.36.^  It  was  evident  that  if  we 
were  ever  to  obtain  payment  for  those  losses  we  would  have 
to  send  a  minister  to  Denmark.  Consequently  Henry  Wheaton 
was  appointed  to  go  to  Copenhagen  to  negotiate  a  settlement. 
In  May,  1827,  Henry  Clay  sent  instructions  to  Wheaton  and 
stated  that  where  his  instructions  were  silent  he  should  follow 
international  law  and  always  keep  in  mind  that  we  wanted  a 
friendly  feeling  to  exist  between  the  United  States  and  Den- 
mark. After  reviewing  the  history  of  the  spoliation  cases, 
which  was  based  on  the  correspondence  of  George  W.  Er\'ing 
and  Baron  Rosenkrantz,  Clay  proceeded  to  set  forth  the  details 
connected  with  the  cases.  He  showed  that  the  seizure  and 
condemnations  had  been  made  on  the  following  grounds:  (1) 
possession  of  false  papers  making  British  property  appear  to 
be  American;  (2)  sailing  under  British  convoy,  hereby  losing 
the  immunity  our  flag  afforded;  (3)  possession  of  French  con- 
sular certificates  of  origin  after  the  French  consuls  had  been 


e  For    the    correspondence    between    Clay    and    Bille    see    Niles'    Weekly 
Register,      (1826)    Vol.   XXXI,  pp.  220-221. 

»  American  State  Papers,  Foreign  Eelations,  Vol.   VI,   pp.   384-385,  504- 
535.   614-624. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         51 

prohibited  from  issuing  them,  except  to  vessels  bound  for 
France. 

In  regard  to  the  first  of  these  grounds,  Clay  stated  that  the 
principle  followed  by  Denmark  was  entirely  correct.  We  were 
as  anxious  as  any  that  those  who  sailed  under  our  flag  un- 
lawfully should  be  punished.  In  these  cases  it  was  only  a 
question  of  establishing  the  facts  proving  whether  the  vessels 
condemned  were  truly  American  or  not.  He  further  held  that 
in  regard  to  the  ''convoy  cases"  it  was  a  question  of  whether 
or  not  convoy  had  been  joined  voluntarily.  Even  in  the  case 
of  voluntary  assumption  of  convoy  it  would  depend  on  the 
purpose  for  which  it  had  been  joined.  If  neutrals  had  not 
joined  convoy  for  an  unlawful  purpose,  there  would  be  no 
reason  why  they  should  be  captured  and  condemned  by  Den- 
mark. Being  unarmed  they  would  not  add  to  England's 
strength.  Indeed,  they  would  weaken  her  power,  as  they  ex- 
panded her  sphere  of  protection.  If  a  friend's  goods  on  an 
enemy's  vessel  were  not  liable  to  condemnation,  there  would 
be  no  reason  why  a  friend's  goods  in  a  friend's  vessel  should 
be  liable  to  condemnation  just  because  that  vessel  was  under 
enemy  convoy.  In  an  enemy's  vessel  the  goods  of  a  friend 
would  surely  be  more  closely  blended  with  that  of  the  enemy 
than  in  the  case  of  convoy.  The  third  ground  for  condemna- 
tion, as  alleged  by  Denmark,  was  void  of  basis  of  fact.  French 
consuls  could  legally  issue  certificates  of  origin  to  the  date  they 
received  orders  to  discontinue  the  practice,  which  was  on 
November  13,  1810.  The  vessels  seized  had  received  them 
earlier  than  that  date.  Even  if  these  certificates  were  not 
genuine,  that  would  not  change  the  condition  so  far  as  Den- 
mark was  concerned.  They  might  have  warranted  detention  by 
the  French  and  possibly  condemnation  in  a  French  court,  but 
to  Denmark  they  were  unimportant  no  matter  whether  they 
were  genuine  or  false. 

Having  set  forth  these  general  principles,  Clay  proceeded 
to  state  that  Wheaton  should  keep  in  mind  that,  after  the 
arrival  of  George  W.  Erving,  Denmark  had  changed  her  atti- 
tude, a  fact  shown  by  the  restraint  placed  on  her  privateers 
and  courts.  She  had,  however,  not  given  redress  for  those 
already  wrongfully  condemned,  the  reason  given  being  that  the 


52        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

king  could  not  reverse  the  sentences  of  his  courts.  We  had 
already  made  clear  to  Denmark  through  Erving,  that  we  were 
not  now  asking  for  a  reversion  of  the  sentences  of  the  courts, 
but  for  indemnity  due  as  a  result  of  those  sentences.  The 
government  would  have  to  be  responsible  for  the  mistakes 
made  by  the  courts,  because  the  courts  received  their  instruc- 
tions from  the  government.  This  was  especially  true  in  regard 
to  the  "convoy  cases,"  which  were  condemned  by  authority  of 
a  special  order. 

Clay  then  related,  in  some  detail,  the  subsequent  negotiations 
in  the  affair  and  closed  his  instructions  by  suggesting  that  a 
board  of  commissioners  should  ascertain  the  amount  due  the 
United  States.  The  method,  however,  was  not  vital.  To  pro- 
cure indemnity  was  the  real  object.  If  Denmark  was  finan- 
cially unable  to  pay  the  full  sum,  we  might  be  willing  to  accept 
a  compromise.^" 

Henry  Wheaton  was  somewhat  delayed  in  presenting  these 
matters  to  the  Danish  officials  for  two  reasons.  The  cases  of 
the  Commerce  and  Hector  were  pending  between  the  United 
States  and  Russia.  One  of  these  cases  involved  the  question 
of  reviewing  a  sentence  pronounced  by  a  prize  court.  This  the 
Russian  government  refused  to  do,  but  finally  consented  to 
pay  an  indemnity.  The  point  of  reviewing  a  court  decree  was 
precisely  the  one  at  issue  between  the  United  States  and  Den- 
mark. Therefore  Wheaton  waited  to  see  what  would  be  the 
outcome  of  the  Russian  case.  The  fact  that  Russia  had  paid 
an  indemnity  in  a  similar  case  naturally  gave  added  strength 
to  the  arguments  later  presented  by  Wheaton.  Further  delay 
took  place  because  of  a  royal  marriage  which  for,  the  time 
being,  completely  engrossed  the  attention  of  the  court.^^ 

In  July,  1828,  however,  Wheaton  was  able  to  present  the 
matter  to  Count  Schimmelman.  He  stated  that  he  had  full 
plenipotentiary  power  to  negotiate  and  terminate  the  whole 
matter.  He  followed  closely  the  instructions  sent  him  by 
Henry  Clay,  and  stated  that  the  United  States  would  be  very 
willing  to  have   a   joint   commission   appointed  to   cover   the 


10  Executive  Documents,  22  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  VI,  Doc.  249,  pp.  2-10. 
"  Ihid.,  pp.  10-11. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         53 

whole  field  of  spoliation  claims,  but  that,  if  Denmark  prefered 
a  settlement  en  hloc,  that  method  would  be  satisfactory  to  the 
United  States.  After  a  great  deal  of  discussion,  Wheaton  was 
at  last  able  to  report  to  his  government  on  January  31,  1829, 
that  the  king  had  appointed  Count  Schimmelman  and  the  Min- 
ister of  Justice,  Count  de  Steman,  as  a  committee  to  treat 
with  him  on  the  subject."  In  the  spring  of  that  year  a  change 
of  administration  took  place  in  the  United  States  and  the 
new  Secretary  of  State,  Martin  van  Buren,  sent  Wheaton  a 
full  copy  of  all  the  claims  against  Denmark,  under  the  direc- 
tion of  John  Connell,  a  Philadelphia  lawyer  who  was  the  special 
representative  of  many  of  the  claimants  interested  in  the 
indemnity.^^  In  August,  1829,  a  conference  was  held  between 
the  Danish  commissioners  and  our  representative  in  which  the 
whole  field  of  argumentation  was  gone  over  again.  To  close 
the  matter  and  avoid  the  consideration  of  individual  cases, 
Denmark  finally  made  a  verbal  offer  to  pay  us  500,000  marcs 
banco  of  Hamburg,  and  to  waive  her  claims  to  indemnity  for 
the  M  creator  and  the  H end/rich.  This  offer  was  made  on  the 
condition  that  all  claims  of  the  United  States  for  captures  by 
Danish  cruisers  should  be  forever  abandoned.  Putting  the 
value  of  the  marc  banco  of  Hamburg  at  thirty-five  cents  and 
the  two  Danish  ships  at  $65,000,  which  was  approximately 
what  Denmark  claimed  they  were  worth,  the  offer  of  the 
commissioners  would  amount  to  about  $230,000.  This  offer  was 
wholly  inadequate  to  cover  the  claims  presented,  which,  as 
stated,  amounted  to  $2,662,280.36.  Wheaton  so  informed  the 
Danish  commissioners  and  after  a  conference  with  John  Con- 
nell made  a  counter-proposition  stating  that  we  would  accept 
3,000,000  marcs  banco  of  Hamburg,  and  Denmark  should  re- 
nounce her  claims  for  the  Mercator  and  the  Hendrick.  If  that 
offer  was  accepted  our  indemnity  would  amount  to  about 
$1,700,000. 

In  September  a  second  conference  was  held.  On  this  occa- 
sion the  Danish  commissioners  argued  that  the  United  States 
could  not  support  their  claims  on  the  mere  assertion  that  they 

12  Ibid.,  pp.  12-16. 

13  Ibid.,  pp.  16,  18. 


54         IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

had  sustained  losses,  because  their  vessels  had  been  condemned. 
They  must  prove  that  the  evidence  which  was  to  establish  their 
neutral  character  was  actually  produced  in  court  by  those  to 
whom  they  had  entrusted  the  property.  It  must  also  be  proved 
that  the  judges  had  pronounced  arbitrary  sentences  and  acted 
contrary  to  the  duties  of  their  office.  It  was  to  avoid  the 
enormous  work  of  going  into  details  of  each  case  that  Denmark 
had  been  willing  to  make  a  proposition  for  settlement." 

This  meeting  adjourned  without  making  a  reply  to  the  new 
arguments.  Later  Wheaton  showed  that,  according  to  the 
principles  of  international  law  as  exemplified  in  specific  cases 
connected  with  Russia,  Prussia,  England  and  the  United  States, 
there  was  no  legal  way  for  Denmark  to  avoid  paying  the  in- 
demnity. Besides  if  the  sentences  of  the  Danish  tribunals  were 
to  be  considered  conclusive,  it  would  mean  that  a  belligerent 
state  was  invested  with  legislative  power  over  neutrals.  It  was 
clear  that  the  decision  of  an  admiralty  tribunal  could  only  be 
conclusive  so  far  as  the  individuals  were  concerned;  they 
could  not  be  binding  on  foreign  nations.  He  also  discussed  the 
three  points  upon  which  Denmark  based  her  right  to  capture 
and  condemn  foreign  vessels,  and  dealt  with  them  along  the 
lines  laid  down  in  his  instructions.^^ 

When  a  report  of  the  conferences  and  the  Danish  offer  was 
made  to  the  American  government,  the  Secretary  of  State  sent 
new  instructions  to  Henry  Wheaton  in  January,  1830.  Martin 
Van  Buren,  under  the  influence  of  his  chief,  Andrew  Jackson, 
expressed  regret  that  Denmark  was  not  more  willing  to  make 
a  settlement.  Wheaton  was  instructed  that  if  nothing  could  be 
done  to  complete  a  settlement  he  was  to  inform  the  govern- 
ment of  Denmark  that  "the  present  Executive  would  not  be 
wanting  in  all  suitable  exertions"  to  make  good  the  declaration 
that  a  just  indemnity  was  wanted.^®  In  a  friendly  but  firm 
note  the  Danish  commissioners  were  informed  of  the  attitude 
of  the  American  govemment.^^ 

"  Ibid.,  pp.  19-21. 
15  Hid.,  pp.  22-29. 
i«  Ibid.,  pp.  39-40. 
"  Ibid.,  pp.  40-42. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         55 

Without  question  the  Danish  authorities  realized  from  this 
communication,  which  was  dated  February  25,  1830,  that 
affairs  were  approaching  a  crisis.  Denmark's  trade  with  the 
United  States  might  in  a  comparatively  short  time  suffer  more 
than  the  price  of  a  settlement.  Something  must  be  done  if 
friendly  relations  with  the  United  States  were  to  continue. 
At  this  point  King  Frederick  VI  of  Denmark  took  matters  into 
his  own  hands  and  ordered  his  commissioners  on  March  23, 
1830,  to  make  an  offer  to  Henry  Wheaton  to  settle  the  case  py 
paying  "650,000  Patagons. "  Upon  the  condition  that  Den- 
mark would  relinquish  her  claims  for  the  Mercator  and  Hen- 
drick  the  offer  was  accepted  and  embodied  in  a  treaty.  This 
document  was  signed  at  Copenhagen  on  March  28  and  later  rati- 
fied by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  Ratifications  were  ex- 
changed in  Washington  on  June  5,  1830.^^ 

The  treaty  is  very  brief,  containing  only  six  articles.  The 
'first  of  these  provided  for  the  relinquishment  of  the  claims  for 
the  Mercator  and  the  Hendrick,  and  the  payment  of  $650,000 
by  the  Danish  government  to  the  United  States.  The  second 
and  third  described  how  the  money  should  be  paid  and  dis- 
tributed. The  fourth  and  fifth  articles  released  Denmark  from 
any  further  payment  of  indemnity  for  spoliation  claims.  The 
last  article  dealt  with  the  manner  of  the  ratification  of  the 
treaty.^® 

It  had  been  a  long  and  tedious  procedure  to  secure  this 
settlement.  The  provisions,  however,  were  promptly  carried 
out  by  the  Danish  government.     In  agreement  with  the  terms 


18  J,  D.  Richardson,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  II.  pp.  481-482.  The  minutes  of  the 
conferences  held  between  Henry  Wheaton  and  the  Danish  commissioners 
are  found  in  Danish  and  French  in  the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs, 
Rigsarkivet,  Copenhagen.  The  letter  from  King  Frederick  VI  is  in  his 
own  handwriting.  Dept.  F.  A.  Nordamerika  I,  b,  Akter  vedrdrende 
Konvcntionen  af  1830,  28  Marts,  1825-1830.  (American  dispatches,  pack- 
age 3.) 

19  For  a  full  statement  of  all  the  claims,  see  House  Executive  Documents, 
19  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Vol.  IX,  Doc.  68:  For  the  diplomatic  correspondence 
connected  with  the  treaty,  see  also  American  Annual  Begister,  (1831-32), 
Vol.  VII,  Appendix,  pp.  214-261.  For  text  of  the  treaty,  see  W.  M. 
Malloy,  Treaties,  etc.  1776-1909.  Vol.  I,  p.  377;  also,  Niles  Begister, 
Vol.  XXXVIII,  pp.  307-308. 


56         IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

of  the  treaty  a  necessary  act  was  passed  by   Congress.     To 
provide  for  the  distribution  of  the  money  among  the  claimants 
a  commission  was  appointed  by  President  Jackson.     It  con- 
sisted of  George  Winchester,  Jesse  Hoyt,  William  J.  Duane, 
and  Robert  Fulton.    When  its  work  was  completed  in  March, 
1833,  the  commission  made  a  final  report  to  the  Secretary  of 
State.^°    At  the  close  of  the  year  1833  all  the  money  had  been 
paid  by  Denmark  and  distributed  by  the  commission.^^ 
4.    Proposal  of  Reciprocity  witln  St.  Croix. 
The  measure  known  as  the  "Tariff  of  Abominations,"  passed 
in  1828,  was  very  detrimental  to  the  trade  between  the  United 
States  and  the  Danish  West  Indies.    To  create  a  better  situation 
Denmark  sent  General  P.  von  Scholten  as  a  special  envoy  to 
Washington  in  the  fall  of  1830  to  arrange  for  a  reciprocity 
treaty,  the  operation  of  which  should  be  limited  in  its  scope. 
General  von  Scholten,  who  was  Governor-General  of  the  Dan- 
ish West  Indies,  reminded  the  American  government  that  Den- ' 
mark  reserved  the  whole  trade  of  the  islands  to  herself  and 
the  United  States.     On  account  of  proximity,  the  islands  ob- 
tained practically  all  their  supplies  from  the  United   States 
and   we  in  turn   imported  the   raw  products  of  the   islands. 
Denmark   felt  that   it  was  unfair   for  the   United   States  to 
place  very  high  duties  on  her  imports,  thus  leaving  a  very 
small   profit  for  the   islands.     If  this  condition   continued   it 
would  become  necessary  to  levy  a  duty  on  goods  imported  from 
the  United  States  to  the  islands,  thereby  shifting  the  trade  to 
other  countries.     To  avoid  this  he  proposed  an  extension  of 
Article  VI  of  the  treaty  of  1826,  which  would  bring  about  a 
state  of  reciprocity.     He  suggested  the  following  amendments: 
(1)  only   ships   under    the    Danish    and    the    American    flags 


20  For  the  text  of  this  report,  see  J.  B.  Moore,  International  Arbitrations, 
Vol.  V,  pp.  4569-4572. 

21  Senate  Journal,  21  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  218;  House  Journal,  21  Cong., 
2  Sess.,  p.  396;  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  IV,  p.  446.  Soon  after  the  treaty 
was  made  several  insurance  companies  presented  claims  to  the  United 
States  for  the  Hendrick  on  the  plea  that  according  to  the  treaty  Den- 
mark had  now  relensed  her  claim.  The  committee  which  had  the  matter 
in  charge  made  an  unfavorable  report.  House  Journal,  21  Cong.,  2  Sess., 
p.  346. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         57 

should  be  allowed  to  carry  on  trade  in  St.  Croix;  (2)  corn 
and  corn  meal  should  enter  the  island  free  of  duty;  (3)  other 
commodities  should  be  arranged  in  a  tariff  schedule  in  such 
a  way  that  not  more  than  five  percent  ad  valorem  could  be 
put  on  necessities  of  life  and  not  more  than  ten  percent  ad 
valorem  on  luxuries;  and  (4)  in  order  to  keep  reciprocity  in 
amount  as  well  as  in  rate,  the  islands  of  St.  Thomas  and  St. 
John  should  not  be  included  in  the  treaty.^^ 

After  due  consideration  Van  Buren  informed  General  von 
Scholten  that  we  were  unable  to  make  such  a  treaty  because 
of  the  most  favored  nations  clause  which  was  included  in 
almost  all  of  our  treaties.  If  we  should  give  concessions  to 
Denmark,  other  nations  could  immediately  claim  the  same 
privileges.  We  hoped  that  whatever  measures  Denmark  should 
see  fit  to  carry  out,  she  would  always  be  guided  by  principles 
consistent  with  the  existing  treaty,  and  directed  by  motives 
in  harmony  with  the  present  friendly  feeling  between  the  two 
nations.^^ 

The  Danish  envoy  expressed  his  regret  because  of  the 
existing  diplomatic  situation.  He  requested,  however,  that  the 
whole  matter  be  laid  before  Congress  for  its  consideration. 
Being  assured  of  this  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  he  left 
the  subject  in  the  hands  of  the  Danish  charge  d'affaires.  Steen 
Bille.^*  The  president  laid  the  matter  before  Congress  in 
December  1830.^^  It  was  reported  to  the  House  by  Mr.  Cam- 
breling,  of  the  committee  on  commerce,  in  March  of  1831. 
The  whole  situation  was  explained  in  the  report  together  with 
General  von  Scholten 's  proposals.  It  was  shown  that  the 
Danish  West  Indies  were  virtually  a  commercial  appendage 
of  the  United  States.  On  account  of  the  diplomatic  difficulties 
which  would  arise  if  the  proposals  were  put  into  operation, 
the  report,  when  read,  was  laid  on  the  table.^^    Denmark,  how- 


22  Senate  Documents,  21  Cong.,  2   Sess.,  Doc.  21,   pp.  2-9. 

23  lUd.,  pp.  9-11. 

24  Ihid.,  pp.  11-15. 

25  Richardson,   op.   dt..  Vol.  II,  pp.  531-532. 

26  The  total  imports  to  the  United  States  from  the  Danish  "West  Indies 
for  the  year  ending   September  30,   1826   amounted  to   $2,067,900.     The 


58        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

ever,  did  not  carry  out  the  threat,  made  by  von  Scholten,  of 
laying  duties  on  American  goods.  On  the  contrary,  she  passed 
a  law  more  liberal  than  any  former  one.  President  Jackson 
in  his  message  to  Congress  intimated  that  she  had  set  a  good 
example  in  her  colonial  policy,  which  it  would  be  well  for 
other  nations  to  follow.^^ 

5.     The  Termination  of  the  Jones    Claims. 

In  March,  1806,  Congress  had  paid  $4000  to  Peter  Landais, 
the  French  captain  of  the  Alliance  which  had  captured  the 
Union,  the  Betsy  and  the  Charming  Polly  in  1779  and  brought 
them  into  Bergen.^*  It  is  possible  that  other  claims  arising 
from  the  Bergen  affair  were  put  before  Congress  prior  to 
1812;  but  as  many  governmental  records  were  destroyed  in 
the  burning  of  the  capitol  during  the  War  of  1812,  no  definite 
record  remains  of  some  things  that  had  been  transacted.  From 
records  extant  it  appears  that  Secretary  Monroe  on  December 
14,  1812,  sent  a  note  to  the  Danish  charge  d'affaires  at  Wash- 
ington, stating  that  a  report  was  current  that  Denmark  had 
decided  to  pay  the  claims.  If  this  report  were  true  our 
government  was  interested  to  learn  how  it  would  be  executed. 
A  few  days  later  an  answer  was  received  in  which  it  was  stated 
that  Denmark  had  never  recognized  the  claim  "as  a  fair  and 
legal  one  and  it  had  for  many  years  already  considered  it  as 
a   superannuated   and    abandoned   affair."^® 

In  January  1820  a  claim,  which  the  previous  month,  had 
been  presented  to  Congress  by  James  Warren,  a  lieutenant  on 


export  to  the  islands  for  the  same  i)eriod  equalled  $1,391,004.  In  that 
same  year  our  direct  commerce  with  Denmark  equalled  $100,582.  in  ex- 
ports and  $49,246.  in  imports.  Congressional  Debates,  19  Cong.,  2  Sess., 
Vol.  m,  Appendix  a,  folder. 

27  Richardson,  op.  oil..  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  24-25;  Senate  Documents,  23  Cong., 
1  Sess.,  Doc.  1,  p.  7.  For  the  correspondence  between  General  P.  von 
Scholten  and  Martin  Van  Buren,  see  Congressional  Debates,  (1830-31), 
Vol.  VEI,  Appendix,  pp.  159-166.  For  the  report  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  see  ibid..  Vol.  VII,  pp.  846-847;  Beports  of  Committees, 
21  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Doc.  117;  Hov^e  Journal,  21  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  pp.  134,  405. 

28  Senate  Dooum,ents,  24  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  HI,  Doc.  198,  p.  I;  Beport 
of  Committees,  29  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Doc.  206,  p.  6. 

28  Annals  of  Congress,  16  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  I,  pp.  256-258. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         59 

board  the  Alliance,  was  acted  upon  unfavorably  by  that 
body.^°  From  this  time  no  claim  seems  to  have  been  pre- 
sented till  December,  1836,  when  Janette  Taylor,  a  niece  of 
John  Paul  Jones,  who  had  become  his  legal  heir,  presented  a 
memorial,  asking  for  the  money  due  as  a  result  of  the  Bergen 
prizes.  She  called  the  attention  of  Congress  to  the  fact  that 
in  1806  relief  had  been  granted  to  Peter  Landais,  although  at 
that  time  he  was  a  disgraced  officer  incapable  of  serving  in 
the  United  States  navy,  as  the  result  of  being  court  martialed 
on  January  6,  1781.  Besides,  Jones  was  his  superior  in  rank. 
She  reminded  Congress  that  it  was  Jones  who  had  first  dis- 
played the  flag  of  the  United  States  on  board  the  Alfred  before 
Philadelphia.  On  board  the  Ranger  in  Quiberon  Bay,  Febru- 
ary 14,  1778,  he  had  claimed  and  obtained  from  M'onsieur  La 
Motte  Picquet  the  first  salute  received  from  a  foreign  power. 
Papers  were  presented  to  prove  that  Jones  had  taken  enough 
British  prisoners  to  redeem  all  our  prisoners  in  Great  Britain. 
In  spite  of  repeated  requests  for  relief  he  had  died  without 
receiving  the  money  due  him  for  the  Bergen  prizes. ^^ 

At  about  the  same  time,  several  other  claims  of  a  similar 
nature  were  presented  to  the  government  of  the  United  States. 
William  C.  Parke  claimed  a  share  in  the  Bergen  prizes  on 
behalf  of  his  father  Mathew  Parke,  who  had  been  a  captain 
of  marines  on  board  the  Alliance.  Nathaniel  Gunnison  pre- 
sented a  claim  in  behalf  of  his  father  John  G.  Gunnison,  who 
had  worked  on  board  the  same  vessel  as  a  carpenter.  Still 
another  claim  was  advanced  by  Lucy  Alexander,  who  likewise 
held  an  interest  in  the  prizes.^^  As  a  result,  the  president  was 
requested  by  Congress  to  present  the  matter  to  the  govern- 
ment of  Denmark.^^  It  seems,  however,  that  nothing  was 
done  at  this  time.  Consequently  the  heirs  of  Jones  again 
called  the  attention  of  our  government  to  the  claims;  and  in 


30  Ibid.,  pp.  33,  257,  277. 

"1  For  the  legal  documents  connected  with  the  Jones*  claim,  see  Exeou- 

tive  Documents,  24  Cong.,  2  Seas.,  Vol.  I,  Doc.  19,  pp.  1-29. 

»2  Eeport  of  Committees,  24  Cong.,   2   Seas.,   Doe.  297.  pp.   1-3;   House 

Journal,  25  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  pp.  49,  259-60,  305,   311. 

S3  Senate  Journal,  24  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  pp.  130,  385,  554. 


60         IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

1843  the  House  of  Kepreseutatives  asked  for  and  obtained 
from.  President  Tyler  the  correspondence  connected  with  the 
affair.** 

From  the  material  obtained  by  the  House  it  appears  that 
an  inquiry  had  been  made  to  discover  whether  the  indemnity 
of  $650,000  paid  by  Denmark  in  1830  was  supposed  to  cover 
the  Jones  claim.  John  C.  Calhoun,  who  was  Secretary  of  State 
at  the  time,  had  stated  that  he  saw  nothing  in  the  treaty  to 
that  effect.  A  letter  was  also  sent  to  Henry  Wheaton,  Minis- 
ter of  the  United  States  at  Berlin,  who  had  negotiated  the 
treaty  with  Denmark  in  1830,  asking  for  his  opinion  on  the 
matter.  Henry  Wheaton 's  reply  is  very  clear  and  throws 
much  light  on  the  subject.  Dealing  with  the  question  whether 
the  long  time  that  had  elapsed  since  the  rise  of  the  claims  had 
invalidated  them,  he  stated  that,  if  this  case  should  be  given 
over  to  a  third  power  for  arbitration,  the  claim  would  most 
likely  not  be  held  valid,  because  almost  seventy  years  had 
passed  since  it  arose.  He  suggested  therefore  that,  in  order 
not  to  harm  the  case,  his  opinion  on  this  point  ought  to  be 
kept  secret.  He  felt  sure,  however,  that  the  claims  were  not 
precluded  by  the  indemnity  treaty  of  1830.  Nothing  was  said 
in  that  treaty  about  the  Bergen  prizes  and  it  was  expressly 
stated  that  the  $650,000  were  paid  for  "the  seizure  and  con- 
fiscation of  American  vessels  and  property  by  the  cruisers  of 
Denmark,  or  within  the  Danish  territory  during  the  war  which 
commenced  between  Great  Britain  and  Denmark  in  1807  and 
was  terminated  by  the  peace  of  Kiel  in  1814."^^ 

Touching  the  problem  of  international  law  involved  in  the 
Bergen  prize  case  he  made  several  comments.  When  a  group 
of  people  form  a  revolution  to  shake  off  the  government  of  the 
"metropolitan  country"  and  to  establish  an  independent  na- 
tion, other  nations  may  follow  various  courses  while  the 
struggle  is   still   going  on.     They  may   remain  passive;  they 


8*  J.  D.  Richardson,  op.  oit.,  "Vol.  IV,  p.  320;  Executive  Documents,  28 

Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Vol.  II,  Doc.  264. 

85  The  wording  of  Wheaton 's  statement  is  faulty  according  to  the  text 

of  the  treaty.     See  W.  M.  Malloy,   Treaties,  etc.,  1776-1909,  Vol.  I,   p. 

377. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         61 

may  recognize  the  revolting  portion  formally  and  yet  remain 
neutral  in  the  struggle;  and  finally,  they  may  form  an  alliance 
with  one  of  the  parties.  With  these  facts  in  view,  he  asked, 
what  attitude  ought  Denmark  to  have  adopted  toward  the 
United  States?  A  neutral  state,  without  any  doubt,  had  the 
right  to  forbid  belligerent  vessels  to  bring  their  prizes  into 
her  harbors,  provided  she  acted  impartially  and  let  her  inten- 
tions be  known.  She  might  even  grant  the  privileges  of  her 
harbors  to  one  of  the  belligerents  and  refuse  it  to  the  other 
if  it  had  been  so  ''stipulated  by  treaties  existing  previous  to 
the  war."  Denmark,  not  being  an  ally  of  Great  Britain, 
should  as  a  neutral  have  shown  hospitality  to  the  vessels 
brought  in  by  the  Americans,  provided  she  had  no  previous 
treaty  with  England  which  she  was  under  obligation  to  ob- 
serve. Neither  could  Denmark  defend  herself  on  the  basis  of 
the  right  of  postliminii  or  reversion  of  previous  condition. 
This  does  not  exist  except  between  subjects  of  the  same  state 
or  between  allies.  Again,  as  Denmark  was  not  an  ally  of  Great 
Britain,  she  could  not  take  advantage  of  that  international 
rule.^® 

Denmark,  he  added,  seemed  to  rest  her  ease  largely  on  the 
fact  that  she  had  not  recognized  the  independence  of  the 
United  States.  The  question,  however,  was  not  whether  she 
had  acknowledged  our  independence,  but  whether  such  a  state 
of  war  actually  existed  between  the  nations  as  made  it  the 
duty  of  all  nations  to  respect  the  rights  of  both.  "Denmark 
must  either  have  considered  the  United  States  as  lawful 
belligerents,  or  as  pirates,  incapable  of  acquiring  any  of  the 
rights  of  just  war.  In  the  former  case,  she  was  bound  to 
perform  towards  them  all  the  duties  of  impartial  neutrality. 
In  the  latter,  her  conduct,  if  its  motive  had  been  avowed, 
might  have  provoked  resentment,  as  an  act  of  hostility,  ac- 
companied with  insult.  In  either  alternative  her  interference 
to  disturb  the  lawful  possession  of  the  captors  would  have 
justified   immediate    reprisals;    though    prudence    might    have 


36  Under  jus  postliminii  property  captured  by  an  enemy,  upon  its  recap- 
ture by  a  friend,  reverts  to  its  owner.  See  also  Monsieur  de  Vattel,  Law 
of  Nations,  Chitty's  edition,  Bk.  Ill,  ch.  14. 


62        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

induced  the  American  government  to  refrain  from  resorting 
to  this  extremity."  Wheaton  felt  however,  that  allowance 
should  be  made  for  the  circumstances  under  which  the  affair  oc- 
curred and  for  the  ideas  of  the  day.  Denmark  had  not  yet  en- 
tered the  Armed  Neutrality,  and  a  colonial  revolt  was  considered 
a  crime.  Besides,  England  probably  brought  very  powerful 
pressure  to  bear  on  the  rather  weak  Danish  state.  It  was 
clear  from  the  correspondence  connected  with  the  case  that 
Denmark  sought  to  "excuse  and  palliate"  rather  than  to 
justify  her  action.^^ 

Wheaton 's  letter,  sent  by  the  State  Department  to  William 
W.  Irvin,  our  representative  in  Copenhagen  in  1843,  formed 
the  basis  of  his  communication  to  the  Danish  foreign  office, 
dated  February  10,  1845.  More  than  two  years  passed  before 
the  Danish  government  replied.  Finally,  on  June  4,  1847, 
the  Danish  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Count  Reventlow- 
Criminil,  answered  Irvin 's  letter.  In  this  communication 
every  argument  that  had  come  up  in  the  whole  controversy 
was  dealt  with  in  detail.  As  Wheaton 's  letter  was  a  master- 
ly exposition  of  the  American  side  of  the  question,  so  this 
letter  was  a  close  rival  stating  the  Danish  side.  It  is  therefore 
important  to  give  a  full  review  of  it. 

He  expressed  surprise  because  the  United  States  at  so  late  a 
period  should  revive  a  claim  which  arose  during  an  age  when 
the  peace  of  the  world  was  disturbed  with  a  large  number  of 
serious  and  complicated  questions.  The  first  question  with 
which  he  dealt  was  that  of  Denmark's  obligations  to  the  two 
belligerent  powers.  He  informed  Irwin  that  the  United  States 
was  wrong  in  stating  that  Denmark  was  under  no  obligation 
to  comply  with  the  demand  of  the  British  government  for  the 
release  of  the  Bergen  prizes.  On  the  contrary  she  was  bound 
by  a  treaty  of  1660,  then  in  force,  to  do  just  what  England 
demanded  of  her.  No  one  could  deny  that  the  colonies  were 
in  revolt  against  England  and  were  carrying  on  a  civil  war. 
As  Denmark  had  not  recognized  the  independence  of  the 
United  States,  the  three  prizes  could  not  be  regarded  by  her 


87  For  the  text  of  the  letter  from  Henry  Wheaton  see  Executive  Docu- 
ments, 28  (Jong.,  1  Sees.,  Vol.  II,  Doc.  264. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         63 

as  anything  but  British  property,  which  according  to  the  treaty 
mentioned  must  be  restored.*®  Under  the  existing  circum- 
stances, therefore,  Bernstorff  could  not  have  entered  into  official 
correspondence  with  Dr.  Franklin  without  recognizing  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  colonies.  This,  he  stated,  must  have  been 
his  reason  for  not  producing  the  treaty  in  question.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  offer  made  by  M.  de  Walterstorff  was  styled 
a  gratuitous  donation,  and  was  not  to  be  regarded  as  an 
acknowledgment  by  the  Danish  government  of  a  wrong  com- 
mitted. On  the  basis  of  these  arguments  he  held  that  the 
claims  of  Commodore  Paul  Jones  were  without  legal  founda- 
tion. 

But,  he  maintained,  there  were  further  reasons  why  no  claim 
should  be  made  at  this  time.  Not  only  were  the  claims  in 
themselves  invalid,  but  they  were  now  both  superannuated 
and  prescribed.  The  United  States  had  only  made  one  very 
indefinite  demand  since  1788.  That  demand,  if  indeed  it 
might  be  considered  as  such,  was  in  a  letter  from  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  to  the  Danish  charge  d'affaires  at  Washington, 
dated  December  18,  1812.  Mr.  Pedersen  had  replied  that 
Denmark  had  never  recognized  the  claim  as  fair  and  besides 
that  it  was  now  superannuated.  No  further  demands  had  been 
presented  and  the  matter  was  dropped.  If  the  claims  were 
recognized  by  lack  of  action  to  be  superannuated  then,  how 
much  more  now  thirty-five  years  later?  If  the  United  States 
had  still  intended  to  put  forth  a  claim  it  should  have  been 
presented  in  1830  when  a  treaty  was  made  for  the  express 
purpose  of  putting  an  end  to  all  existing  claims.  Reventlow- 
Criminil  closed  by  saying  that  he  was  firmly  convinced  that 
the  arguments  presented  would  "be  sufficient  to  put  an  end 
to  the  claims  forever,"  and  "to  remove  all  subjects  of  discord 
.  .  .  between  the  government  of  the  United  States  and  that 
of  his  august  sovereign."*® 


«*  The  treaty  provided  that  the  contracting  parties  would  not  harbor  the 
enemies  or  rebels,  the  one  of  the  other,  nor  allow  their  subjects  to  do  so. 
In  the  same  way  the  property  of  the  one,  being  brought  into  the  realms 
of  the  other  by  enemies  or  rebels,  should  forthwith  be  restored.  For  the 
text  of  Article  V,  see  Appendix  C. 
3»  For  full  text  of  the  letter  from  Reventlow-Criminil  to  W.  W.   Irvin, 


64         IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

It  is  of  interest  to  notice  how  well  the  arguments  of  Henry 
Wheaton  and  those  of  Reventlow-Criminil  agree  on  the  main 
points  of  international  law.  Both  recognized  statutes  of  limi- 
tation, although  our  government  in  the  past  had  not  accepted 
this  principle.*"  The  two  men  were  also  agreed  in  regard  to 
obligations  where  a  treaty  existed.  They  did,  however,  not 
agree  on  the  question  of  the  recognition  of  independence. 
Wheaton  took  the  stand  that  Denmark  was  under  obligations 
to  the  United  States  no  matter  whether  or  not  she  had  recog- 
nized their  independence,  while  Reventlow-Criminil  held  that 
on  account  of  the  existing  treaty  Denmark  was  under  obliga- 
tions to  England  at  least  until  she  had  recognized  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  colonies.  Till  that  time  she  would  have  to 
treat  them  as  rebels  and  could  not  enter  into  diplomatic  rela- 
tions with  them. 

It  seems  quite  clear  that  for  two  reasons  Denmark  was  under 
no  obligation  to  pay  the  Jones  claims  in  1846.  The  first  of 
these  is  intrinsic  in  the  case.  When  she  gave  back  the  Bergen 
prizes  to  Great  Britain  she  was  performing  a  duty  under  a 
treaty,  hence  could  not  be  held  culpable  by  a  third  party. 
The  second  reason  is  found  in  the  principle  of  prescription, 
which  operated  in  this  case  because  of  the  lapse  of  time.  On 
the  basis  of  this  principle  the  rights  of  the  United  States  must 
have  terminated,  if  not  earlier,  at  least  in  1830.  Denmark, 
however,  committed  what  might  be  called  a  moral  wrong  by 


see  Beports  of  Cominittees,  30  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Doc.  9,  pp.  54-56.  The 
diplomatic  dispatches,  connected  with  this  affair,  located  in  the  Depart- 
ment of  Foreign  Affairs,  Eigsarkivet  at  Copenhagen  are  not  released  for 
the  use  of  the  public. 

*o  Expressing  the  opinion  of  a  former  committee  on  foreign  affairs,  Mr. 
Maclay,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Naval  Affairs,  on  February  10, 
1846,  made  the  following  statement  in  the  House  of  Representatives  in 
regard  to  the  Jones  case.  "It  is  not,  as  intimated  by  Mr.  Pederson, 
an  abandoned  affair,  nor  is  it  a  superannuated  one.  Questions  of 
honor  and  right,  as  between  sovereign  states,  are  not  to  be  summarily 
disposed  of  like  the  debt  of  an  individual,  by  a  statute  of  limitations. 
There  is  no  lapse  of  time  which  discharges  a  nation  of  the  right  to 
demand  of  another  nation  reparation  for  a  palpable  wrong.".  Beport 
of  Committees,  29  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Doc.  206,  p.  6. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         65 

failing  to  set  forth  more  fully  and  convincingly  the  facts  of 
the  treaty  of  1660  in  the  early  stages  of  the  negotiation. 

It  appears  that  the  matter  was  dropped.  The  claims  of 
the  heirs  of  Jones  and  others  connected  with  the  Bergen  prize 
affair  were,  however,  still  before  Congress.  To  dispose  of  the 
whole  affair,  as  well  as  to  honor  the  name  of  the  great  revolu- 
tionary commodore.  Congress  passed  an  act  on  March  21,  1848, 
for  the  relief  of  all  concerned.  Thus  ended  the  history  of 
the  Bergen  prize  case  and  of  the  Jones'  claims — the  first  and 
also  the  longest  drawn  out  controversy  between  the  United 
States  and  Denmark.*^ 


*i  For  the  documents  in  full  connected  with  the  Jones'  claims,  see 
ibid.,  pp.  1-29;  House  Journal,  30  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  429-432,  626; 
Senate  Journal,  30  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  229;  Beport  of  Committees,  30 
Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  I,  Doc.  9;  Senate  Beports,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  I, 
Doc.  180;  Senate  Executive  Documents,  37  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Vol.  IV,  Doc. 
1;  Status  at  Large,  Vol.  IX,  p.  214. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  ABOLITION  OF  SOUND  DUES  AND  OTHER  PROB- 
LEMS, 1841-1860 

1.    Abolition  of  the  Sound  Dues. 

The  Baltic  Sea  would  be  a  mare  clausum  if  it  were  not  for 
the  three  narrow  straits,  which,  by  their  continuation  through 
the  Cattegat  and  the  Skagerak,  connect  it  with  the  North  Sea 
and  the  Atlantic  Ocean.  The  Little  Belt  between  Jutland  and 
the  island  of  Fyn  (Fuenen)  is  too  shallow  to  be  of  much  use 
to  navigation.  The  Great  Belt  between  Fyn  and  Sjceland 
(Zealand)  does  not  run  in  a  favorable  direction  for  ships 
bound  for  the  eastern  Baltic  ports.  Consequently  the  Oresund, 
or,  as  it  is  known  in  the  English  tongue,  the  Sound,  between 
Zealand  and  Sweden  has  always  been  the  main  entrance  to  the 
Baltic.  From  time  immemorial  the  dues  collected  for  the  priv- 
ilege of  passing  through  the  Sound  or  Belts  had  constituted 
a  rich  source  of  Danish  revenue. 

To  understand  why  a  difference  should  arise  between  the 
United  States  and  Denmark  in  regard  to  the  collection  of  the 
Sound  Dues  it  is  of  importance  to  know  approximately  when 
and  how  these  dues  originated.  Because  of  their  early  origin 
they  were  intrically  interwoven  with  the  political  and  economic 
systems,  not  only  of  Denmark,  but  of  Europe.  On  account  of 
their  age  Denmark  insisted  on  her  right  to  collect  the  dues, 
the  right  being  a  part  of  the  law  of  nations;  while  on  the 
very  same  ground  the  United  States  insisted  on  her  right  of  ex- 
emption from  paying  the  dues,  as  she  had  never  been  the  benefi- 
ciary of  the  acts  and  movements  through  which  the  dues  had 
originated. 

Students  during  the  last  fifty  years  have  set  forth  the 
theory  that  the  Sound  Dues  originated  between  the  years  1423 
and  1429.  Their  contention  is  based  on  a  statement  in  the 
"Liibecker  Tage"  of  July,  1423.  where  it  is  reported  that  the 


66 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         67 

king  at  Copenhagen  levied  a  toll  on  the  ships  in  the  Sound.^ 
Their  conclusion  is  somewhat  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  no 
records  exist  in  the  Danish  archives  dated  before  the  year 
1497.  From  that  date  till  1660,  actual  records  are  extant  of 
the  number  of  ships  that  passed  the  Sound,  their  nationality, 
and  the  amount  of  dues  collected,  for  one  hundred  and  ten 
years  passim  out  of  the  one  hundred  and  sixty  three.^ 

It  appears,  however  that  the  date  1423  is  not,  after  all,  the 
year  of  the  origin  of  the  Sound  Dues.  The  Danish  historian, 
Baden,  has  advanced  the  theory  that  the  early  Danish  kings 
had  complete  control  over  the  Sound  and  Belts.  They  felt 
it  to  be  their  duty  to  keep  them  cleared  of  pirates.  When 
strangers  wanted  to  sail  through,  either  for  the  sake  of  war, 
for  trade,  or  for  obtaining  herrings  in  the  Sound,  they  had  to 
secure  permission  of  the  Danish  king.  This  could  only  be 
obtained  through  the  payment  of  money.  Thus  the  dues 
originated  because  the  king  rendered  a  service.^  This  theory, 
although  plausible,  would  not  be  of  much  value  per  se.  Docu- 
ments, however,  are  extant  which  show  the  existence  of  the 
dues  earlier  than  1423.  On  April  4,  1436,  the  City  of  Danzig 
sent  an  inquiry  to  the  City  of  Liibeck  asking  what  was  their 
understanding  in  regard  to  the  status  of  the  Sound  Dues, 
since  the  peace  with  King  Erick.*  Liibeck  answered  on  April 
21,  1436,  that  according  to  the  treaty  between  them  and  the 
King  of  Denmark  (Erick  of  Pomerania)  they  were  to  enjoy 
all  the  old  privileges,  and  as  freedom  from  the  payment  of 
Sound  Dues  was  one  of  those  privileges  they  did  not  intend 
to  pay  the  dues.''     It  seems  clear,  while  not  conclusive,  that 


1  This  is  the  conclusion  of  the  Danish  historian,  J.  A.  Fredericia,  in 
his  article,  "Fra  hvilken  Tid  skriver  Sundtolden  sig?"  Historisk 
Tidsskrift,  4de  Rsekke,  Bind  5  (1875-1877),  pp.  1-20.  The  same  opinion 
is  held  by  the  German  historian,  Dietrich  Schafer,  in  his  article,  "Zur 
Frage  nach  der  Einfiihring  dea  Sundzolls, "  Hansische  Geschichtsbldtter 
1875,  pp.  31-43.     For  the  basis  of  their  statement  see  Appendix  D. 

2  These  records  have  been  published  by  Nina  EUinger  Bang,  Tabeller 
over  Skihsfart  og  Varetransport  gennem  Oresund,  1479-1660. 

3  Gustav  L.  Baden,  A f handling er  i  Fcedrelandets  Historic,  Vol.  II, 
pp.  221-260. 

*  Hansereccesse,  Abth,  II,  Vol.  I,  pp.  485-486. 
5  Ibid.,   pp.    486-487. 


68        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

the  dues  according  to  this  statement  must  antedate  the  year 
1423,  or  the  term  "old  privileges"  must  have  a  peculiar  mean- 
ing in  this  place. 

On  February  6,  1386,  a  treaty  was  made  between  Denmark 
and  certain  Prussian  towns  in  which  the  latter  were  promised 
free  navigation  of  the  Sound,  providing  they  would  not  station 
ships  of  war  there,  but  trust  to  the  Danish  king  to  keep  it 
clear.*  In  1328  King  Christopher  II  granted  exemption  from 
toll  in  the  Great  Belt  to  the  monastery  of  Soro.  It  is  self- 
evident  that  dues  must  have  been  charged  in  the  Sound  as 
early  as  they  were  in  the  Belts,  otherwise  there  would  have 
been  no  traffic  in  th  Belts  at  all.  Hence  we  may  infer  that 
the  Sound  Dues  date  back  at  least  to  1328.'' 

From  time  to  time  Denmark's  right  to  collect  the  Sound 
Dues  was  recognized  by  treaty.  It  is  not  necessary  to  give 
here  a  history  of  the  treaties  dealing  with  this  subject.  It  will 
suffice  to  state  that  the  rate  of  dues  was  based  on  a  schedule 
incorporated  in  the  treaty  of  Christianople  in  1645,  between 
Denmark  and  Holland.  Certain  obscure  portions  in  this 
schedule  were  explained  in  a  supplementary  treaty  with  the 
Dutch  in  1701.  Upon  this  basis  dues  were  collected  till  1841, 
when  a  treaty  was  made  between  England  and  Denmark 
establishing  a  new  schedule.  This  treaty,  with  a  few  changes 
established  in  an  amendatory  treaty  of  1846,  remained  the 
basis  until  the  dues  were  abolished  in  1857.® 

The  Sound  Dues  were  not   collected  with  equal   regularity 


«  Begesta  Diplomatica  Hiatorice,  p.  426.  For  the  text  of  the 
agreement,  see  Hanserecesse,  Abth.  I,  Vol.  II,  pp.  372-373. 

7  J.  F.  W.  Schlegel,  DanmarTcs  og  Eertugddmmemes  Statsret,  Chapter 
VTI.  Macgregor  states:  "The  most  ancient  charter  extant,  referring 
to  toll  payable  in  the  Sound  and  Belts,  is  that  granted  by  Erick  Menved 
in  1319  to  the  Town  of  Harderwieck  in  Holland  stipulating  the  rate 
of  duty  to  be  paid  by  Dutch  ships  at  Nyborg,  upon  the  conveyance 
through  the  Belts  of  cloth  destined  for  sale."  John  Macgregor,  Com- 
mercial Statistics,  Vol.  I.  p.  165,  Note.  I  have  been  unable  to  find 
any  other  reference  to  this  document. 

8  M.  Thomas  Antoine  de  Marien,  Tableu  des  Droits  et  Usages  de  Com- 
merce jRelatifs  au  Passage  du  Sund;  F.  Hessenland,  On  Sound-Dues; 
H.  Sclierer,  Der  Sundzoll.  These  works  give  a  good  resume  of  the  sub- 
ject. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         69 

and  for  the  same  purpose  at  all  times.  By  a  royal  decree  of 
1532  King  Christain  III  ordered  dues  to  be  collected,®  an  un- 
necessary order  if  they  were  being  collected.  In  1633  Chris- 
tian IV  caused  special  dues  to  be  levied  so  that  a  better  harbor 
might  be  built  at  Elsinore  where  the  ships  had  to  lay  in  to 
pay  the  dues.^°  In  1692  the  dues  were  farmed  out  for  the  sum 
of  160,000  rixdollars,  which  sum  must  have  been  too  large,  as 
Eduart  Krusse,  the  farmer  of  the  revenue,  complained  he  could 
not  pay  it.^^  This  condition  was  probably  the  cause  of  a 
royal  decree  which  ordered  dues  to  be  collected  from  Danish 
vessels  as  well  as  foreign."  The  fact  noted  above  that  we 
have  records  for  only  one  hundred  and  ten  years  between 
1497  and  1660  may  perhaps  be  explained  on  the  same  basis. 
During  the  seventeenth  century  much  dissatisfaction  arose  on 
account  of  these  irregularities.^^  When,  however,  the  dues  of 
every  nation  were  put  on  the  basis  of  the  Dutch  treaties  of 
1645  and  1701,  the  dissatisfaction  disappeared.  At  least, 
complaints  appeared  to  cease  during  the  eighteenth  century. 

The  country  that  paid  the  greatest  part  of  the  Sound  Dues 
was  naturally  Great  Britain.  As  stated,  she  had  secured  con- 
siderable reduction  by  the  treaties  of  1841  and  1846.  Because 
of  the  most  favored  nations  clause  incorporated  in  nearly 
every  treaty,  practically  every  country  was  benefited  by  the 
Anglo-Danish  treaties.  So  far  every  nation  acquiesced,  legally 
at  least,  in  their  existence. 

The  first  nation  that  refused  to  pay  the  dues  was  the  United 
States.  The  first  popular  discontent  was  expressed  in  the 
Boston  Monthly  Magazine  of  January,  1826.  Here  Caleb  Cush- 
ing  argued  that  it  was  not  in  harmony  with  our  dignity  to 
pay  tribute  to  any  nation,  especially  where  no  quid  pro  quo 
was  received.     Whether  Denmark  could  justly  claim  the  dues 


»  For  the  text  of  the  decree,  see  C.  F.  Wegner,  Bigsarkivets  Aarsberet- 
nvnger,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  30. 

10  For  the  text  of  the  decree,  see  Appendix  E. 

11  "Diary    of    King    Christian   V."    March    30,    1692.      C.    F.    Wegener, 
GeheimerarTcivets  Aarsberetmnger,  Vol.  VI.  p.  287. 

12  Ibid.,  p.  274. 

18  Ibid.,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  97-98  Vol.  VI,  p.  315. 


70        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

in  the  past  was  of  little  importance  to  us  as  there  was  now  no 
adequate  reason  why  we  should  pay  them." 

In  May  1841,  Daniel  Webster,  the  Secretary  of  State,  called 
the  attention  of  the  President  to  the  fact  that  even  though 
we  had  comparatively  little  direct  commerce  with  Denmark, 
yet  we  paid  a  yearly  sum  of  about  $100,000  in  Sound  Dues, 
Besides  this,  we  paid  port  dues  even  though  we  did  not  enter 
Danish  ports  except  to  pay  the  Sound  Dues.  He  recommended 
that  our  minister  to  Denmark  enter  into  communication  with 
the  Danish  government  to  have  this  condition  changed." 

When  in  1844  Calhoun  became  Secretary  of  State,  he  wrote 
to  Wm.  W.  Irvin  for  all  the  information  he  could  get  in 
regard  to  the  navigation  in  the  Sound,  but  requested  that  the 
matter  be  kept  secret.  Irvin  sent  this  information  and  sug- 
gested that,  if  the  United  States  intended  to  terminate  the 
treaty  of  1826  in  order  to  bring  the  Sound  Dues  question  to 
a  head,  she  had  better  not  wait  too  long  "as  the  wheels  grind 
slow  in  Denmark."^*  It  appears  that  nothing  further  was 
done  at  this  time.  In  1848  the  new  minister,  Robert  P.  Flenni- 
ken,  in  a  conversation  with  the  Danish  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  broached  the  question  of  the  abolition  of  the  dues. 
The  Danish  minister,  according  to  Flenniken,  acknowledged 
that  the  dues  were  unfair  and  that  he  could  not  defend  the 
principle  upon  which  they  were  being  collected.  A  little  later 
the  American  Secretary  of  State,  James  Buchanan,  in  a  letter 
to  Flenniken  expressed  his  satisfaction  with  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  Danish  minister.  He  suggested  that,  as  the  reciproc- 
ity in  navigation  arranged  for  in  the  treaty  of  1826  was 
altogether  one-sided  in  favor  of  Denmark,  it  was  fair  that 
Denmark  should  abolish  the  Sound  Dues  on  our  vessels  to 
even  up  matters.      Buchanan  even   suggested  that    Flenniken 


"  The   article   is   reprinted   from  the   Boston  Monthly   Magazine  in   the 

North  American  Beview,  April,  1826,  Vol.  XXII,  pp.  456-459. 

IS  Executive  Documents  arul  Beports  of  Committees,  27  Cong.,   1   Sess., 

Doc.  1,  pp.  26-28. 

i«  "Letters    of    John    C.    Calhoun    "Annual    Beport    of    the    American 

Historical  Association,  1899,  Vol.  II,  pp.  590-591;   Executive  Documents, 

33  Cong.,   1   Sess.,  Doc.  108,  pp.   28-30. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         71 

might  offer  Denmark  $250,000  if  such  an  arrangement  could 
be  made  permanent." 

At  the  time  that  Flenniken  laid  Buchanan's  offer  before 
Count  A.  V.  Moltke,  the  Danish  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs, 
Denmark  was  engaged  in  the  Three  Years'  War.  Count  Moltke 
asked  our  minister  to  put  his  request  and  offer  in  written 
form;  which  he  did.  The  reasoning  followed  in  this  communi- 
cation includes  several  points.  It  was  pointed  out  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  treaty  of  1826,  America  was  not  allowed  to  enter 
all  Danish  ports,  while  Denmark  was  free  to  enter  all  of  ours. 
Other  nations  paid  Sound  Dues  for  services  Denmark  had 
rendered  to  them  in  the  past.  Since  we  had  never  received 
any  of  those  benefits  we  ought  not  to  pay  the  dues.  The  Baltic 
being  a  free  sea,  the  entrance  to  it  ought  to  be  free;  this  was 
in  accordance  with  the  best  authorities  on  international  law. 
The  very  fact  that  Denmark  had  to  make  treaties  in  regard 
to  the  Sound  Dues,  was  a  proof  that  they  were  not  sanctioned 
by  the  law  of  nations.  Before  closing  his  communication  he 
made  it  clear  to  the  Danish  government  that  if  Denmark  was 
unwilling  to  make  a  change  the  United  States  intended  to 
terminate  the  treaty  of  1826.^* 

It  was  quite  clear,  however,  that  while  Denmark  continued 
at  war  with  Germany  nothing  definite  could  be  accomplished. 
Besides,  the  Danish  government  had  borrowed  money  in  Eng- 
land and  her  creditors  had  obtained  a  pledge  that  the  Sound 
Dues  should  be  kept  sacred  for  the  payment  of  interest  on  the 
loan.  Added  to  this  was  the  fact  that  Russia  was  favorable 
to  Denmark  and  used  Elsinore  as  a  projected  naval  police 
station.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  those  two  countries 
would  back  Denmark  in  upholding  the  payment  of  the  dues.^^ 

At  the  close  of  the  Three  Years'  War,  Robert  P.  Flenniken, 
who  had  become  well  acquainted  with  the  facts  pertaining  to 
the  Sound  Dues,  was  no  longer  our  representative  in  Den- 
mark.   Two  other  men  followed  in  quick  succession.^"    In  1854 

17  Ibid.,  pp.  38-42. 

18  Ibid.,  pp.  42-49. 
i»  Ibid.,  pp.  49-51. 
20  See  Appendix   I. 


72        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

Henry  Bedinger  was  appointed  to  the  post  at  Copenhagen.  At 
this  time  William  L.  Marcy  was  Secretary  of  State  under  Presi- 
dent Pierce.  Marcy  instructed  Henry  Bedinger  to  bring  the 
subject  to  the  attention  of  the  Danish  government,  as  it  must 
be  settled.  He  showed  to  our  representative  that  it  was  to 
England's  advantage  to  keep  up  the  Sound  Dues  because  the 
duty  on  raw  products  was  higher  than  on  manufactured  goods; 
thus  she  gained  by  importing  raw  products  into  England  and 
making  it  into  manufactured  goods  which  were  shipped  (to 
Baltic  ports.  Bedinger  was  further  informed  that  the  United 
States  would  not  be  willing  to  make  any  payments  or  give 
any  commercial  privileges  in  lieu  of  the  abolition  of  the 
dues.^^ 

Henry  Bedinger  broached  the  matter  to  the  Danish  foreign 
office,  but  was  informed  that  Denmark  could  not  abolish  the 
dues  without  remuneration.  Later  the  Danish  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs  expressed  the  hope  that  the  United  States 
would  not  press  the  matter  just  at  that  time  (April,  1854) 
because  of  the  political  situation  in  Europe.  Some  day,  so  he 
thought,  there  might  be  a  possibility  that  Denmark,  for  a 
compensation,  would  abandon  the  dues  altogether.  Being  re- 
minded that  the  United  States  government  was  unwilling  to 
give  any  compensation,  he  stated  that  he  had  strong  reasons 
to  believe  she  would.*^^ 

In  spite  of  the  request  not  to  urge  the  matter  while  the 
Crimean  War  was  in  progress,  Marcy  endeavored  to  bring  the 
matter  to  a  speedy  conclusion.  Denmark  was  informed  that 
the  American  government  had  decided  to  terminate  the  treaty 
of  1826.*^  In  ans\ver  to  this  notification,  the  Danish  govern- 
ment through  Torben  Bille,  its  representative  at  Washington, 
communicated  to  Secretary  Marcy  its  views  in  regard  to  its 
right  to  collect  the  Sound  Dues.  The  United  States  had  claimed 
that  the  dues  were  not  sanctioned  by  the  law  of  nations,  but 
were  based  on  special  conventions  made  between  Denmark  and 


21  Executive  Documents,  33  Cong.,  1  Seas.,  Doc.  108,  pp.  54-58. 

22  Ihid.,  pp.  59-61. 

23  Executive  Documents,  34  Cong.,  1   Sess.,  Vol.  I,  Doc.  1,  p.  25. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         73 

the  various  powers.  It  was  this  point  that  Torben  Bille 
especially  sought  to  refute. 

The  Sound  Dues,  he  claimed,  were  based  on  the  law  of 
nations  by  immemorial  prescription.  The  right  to  collect  them 
had  existed  long  before  any  treaties  were  made  regulating  the 
rate.  If  the  right  were  based  on  treaties,  it  would  mean  that 
the  various  strong  powers  in  Europe  had  voluntarily  made 
a  grant  to  Denmark.  This  was  contrary  to  historical  facts. 
Neither  was  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  Denmark  was  able 
to  force  her  will  upon  the  strong  and  powerful  European 
states.  In  that  case  they  would  certainly  never  have  incor- 
porated them  voluntarily  in  their  treaties  with  Denmark. 
While  the  origin  of  the  Sound  Dues  was  shrouded  in  the 
uncertainty  of  antiquity,  yet  it  was  clear  that  when  inter- 
national affairs  began  to  be  regulated  by  definite  rules,  the 
right  to  collect  the  dues  was  so  well  established,  that  without 
protest  it  was  incorporated  in  treaties.  Although  the  Danish 
government  would  be  willing  to  admit  that,  according  to  the 
present  interpretation  of  international  law,  the  imposition  of 
similar  duties  now,  for  the  first  time,  could  not  be  sanctioned, 
yet  she  would  not  admit  that  this  should  be  a  criterion  by 
which  to  judge  rights  that  had  been  in  existence  since  time 
immemorial.  He  further  pointed  out  that  the  treaty  of 
Vienna  recognized  the  Sound  Dues  in  the  settlement  of 
European  affairs,  at  a  time  when  similar  arrangements  were 
being  remodeled.  Under  these  circumstances,  the  abrogation 
of  the  treaty  of  1826  would  not  affect  a  right  which  existed 
independently  of  the  treaty.  It  would  only  leave  the  United 
States  shorn  of  the  rights  and  benefits  which  she  enjoyed  as 
a  result  of  the  treaty.  Because  of  the  existence  of  other 
treaties,  it  would  be  impossible  to  exempt  the  United  States 
from  the  pajonent  of  the  duties  on  their  commerce,  as  every 
other  nation  would  claim  the  same  advantage.^* 

Marcy  did  not  even  deem  it  worth  while  to  answer  Bille 's 
letter,  but  replied  to  the  Danish  government  by  instructing 
Henry  Bedinger  to  request,  in  a  final  appeal,  that  American 
commerce  be  relieved   of  the  burden.     If  this  should  prove 


2*  For  text  of  the  letter,  see  ibid.,  pp.  25-28, 


74        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

unsuccessful,  he  was  instructed  to  inform  the  Danish  gov- 
ernment that  the  treaty  of  1826  was  abrogated  and  to  request 
acknowledgment  of  the  fact  from  the  Danish  foreign  office. 
Bedinger  carried  out  his  instructions.^' 

It  may  be  of  interest  at  this  point  to  learn  what  was  the 
general  attitude  of  the  leading  powers  towards  the  Sound  Dues 
situation.  Of  the  German  states,  Prussia  was  very  much  op- 
posed to  the  dues.  The  question  was  discussed  in  the  Laiidtag 
by  von  Sanger  who  was  backed  by  that  body  in  his  opposi- 
tion. Unfavorable  articles  appeared  in  the  papers  of  K61n 
and  Hamburg,  and  a  letter  from  Hamburg,  containing  the 
same  sentiment,  appeared  in  the  New  York  Tribune.'^^  A 
vigorous  pamphlet  was  published  in  Stettin  in  German,  Eng- 
lish, and  French  condemning  the  dues  as  unjust  and  con- 
trary to  international  law.^^ 

In  England,  on  the  other  hand,  the  sentiment  in  general 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  much  opposed  to  the  dues.  We 
have  found  only  one  unfavorable  expression,  before  the  mat- 
ter was  taken  up  in  Parliament.  It  runs  as  follows:  "When 
the  ten  year  treaty  between  Great  Britain  and  Denmark  made 
in  1841  comes  to  a  close,  some  means  ought  to  be  found  for 
the  perpetual  redemption  of  the  Sound  Dues."^*  In  1856 
Palmerston  expressed  his  opinion  to  Count  Persigny  and 
Count  Walewski,  the  French  and  the  Russian  Ministers  at 
London,  as  being  against  the  abrogation  of  the  dues.^®  Similar 
opinions  were  offered  at  this  time  in  Parliament.  Bramley- 
Moore,  sitting  for  Maiden,  felt  that  to  abrogate  the  dues  by 
a  money  payment  was  to  use  public  money  for  the  benefit 
of  a  few  traders.  Besides,  it  would  be  unfair  because  the 
Sound  Dues  had  been  hypothecated  in  London  for  a  loan  to 


«8  Ibid.,  pp.  28-32. 

26  De  Bow's  Beview,  (1855),  Vol.  XVIII,  pp.  760-763;  Executive  Do<y 
wnents,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Doc.  108,  pp.  26-28,  31-32;  New  York  Tribune, 
September   2,   1856. 

2T  F.   Hessenland,   Le  Droit  du   Sund,  passim. 

88  Edinburgh  Beview,   (1845),  Vol.  LXXXII,  p.  212. 

2»  "Aflfisning  af  Sund  og.  Belttolden,"  Historisk  Tidsskrift,  1858-1859, 

3dje  Eeekke,  Vol.  I,  pp.  486-488. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         75 

Denmark,^"  In  spite  of  these  voices,  however,  England 
finally  took  a  stand  in  favor  of  capitalization,  as  we  shall  see 
later. 

In  February,  1854,  Henry  Bedinger  wrote  to  Secretary 
Marey  that  Russia  was  backing  Denmark  ''by  requiring  her 
ports  to  refuse  to  receive  the  cargo  of  any  vessel  which  has 
not  paid  the  dues. '  '^^  According  to  a  statement  made  by  Gen- 
eral D'Oxholm,  the  Danish  representative  at  the  court  of  St. 
James,  to  James  Buchanan,  our  ambassador  at  the  same 
court,  Bedinger 's  report  was  hardly  correct,  as  it  was  not 
through  an  act  of  the  central  government,  but  by  municipal 
regulations  that  the  ports  had  acted.  ^^  Russia,  however, 
had  made  it  clear  to  the  Danish  government  that  she  would 
stand  by  Denmark  in  her  demands.^^ 

The  question  naturally  arises,  why  was  Russia  in  favor 
of  letting  Denmark  continue  to  collect  the  Sound  Dues?  There 
certainly  were  economic  reasons  why  she  should  be  in  favor 
of  their  abolition.  It  seems  very  probable  that  her  attitude 
was  based  on  dynastic  grounds.  During  the  fifties  it  was 
evident  that  King  Frederick  VII  would  not  leave  any  legal 
heirs.  This  caused  the  rise  of  the  very  unfortunate  Danish 
succession  problem.  There  were  three  sets  of  pretenders  to 
Denmark  and  Schleswig-Holstein.  The  nearest  heir  to  the 
Danish  throne  was  Princess  Louisa,  of  the  House  of  Olden- 
burg, who  was  married  to  Duke  Christian  of  Gliicksburg,  a 
gentleman  who  himself  had  a  close  claim  to  the  duchies  and 
a  remote  claim  to  Denmark.  While  Louisa  could  inherit  Den- 
mark and  Schleswig  the  Lex  regia  was  against  her  in  Holstein, 
as  it  did  not  recognize  female  succession.  The  second  pre- 
tender really  had  no  true  claim,  as  his  father  had  sold  his 
right  for  3,000,000  rixdoUars  which  had  been  paid  by  Den- 
mark. This  claimant,  of  the  House  of  Augustenburg,  held 
that,  as  he  was  of  age  when  his  father  sold  the  claim,  his  right 


80  Hansard's  Parliamentary  Debates,   Vol.  CXLIV,   pp.   2400-2404. 

SI  Executive  Documents,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Doe.  108,  p.  60. 

32  Buchanan  to   Marcy,  April  20,  1855.     J.  B.   Moore,   WorTcs  of  James 

Buchanan,  Vol.   IX,   pp.    345-346. 

83  Letter   from    Berlin,    dated    September    15,    1855,   New    York    Tribune, 

October  5,  1855. 


76        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

was  not  included.'*  The  third  pretender  was  Czar  Nicholas 
I  of  Russia,  a  descendent  of  Czarina  Catharina  II,  who 
belonged  to  the  House  of  Gottorp  in  Holstein.  In 
order  to  secure  a  legal  title  to  the  Baltic  provinces  which 
Peter  the  Great  had  secured  for  Russia  in  the  treaty  of 
Nystad,  she  had  made  a  treaty  with  Denmark  on  April  22, 
1767  in  which  that  country  gave  up  all  her  claims  to  the 
provinces  while  Cathrina  II  renounced  her  right  to  the  duchy 
of  Schleswig.^'  "While  this  treaty  had  referred  only  to  Schles- 
wig,  there  was  a  historic  indissoluble  union  between  the 
duchies.  It  was  further  understood  that  whoever  ruled  in 
Schleswig  would  also  rule  in  Denmark,  so  that  the  three  ter- 
ritories were  tied  together  in  a  personal  union,'*  When  the 
question  of  succession  arose  in  Denmark  Czar  Nicholas  began 
to  hope  that  he  might  revive  his  claim,  and  thus  secure  for 
hdmself  or  some  member  of  the  Romanoff  family  the  three 
Danish  realms.  It  was  his  good  fortune  that  he  was  able  to 
make  a  treaty  with  Denmark  on  June  5,  1851,  in  which  the 
provisions  of  1767  in  regard  to  the  succession  were  changed  in 
his  favor.''^  With  such  prospects  before  him  he  would  not 
want  Denmark  to  give  up  anything  that  might  become  very 
valuable  to  him  in  the  future.  While  the  Protocol  of  London, 
1852,  settled  the  succession  on  Christian  of  Glticksburg,  ''Russia 
....  never  lost  the  possibility  of  the  succession  out  of  view.** 
When  it  became  clear  that  the  Sound  Dues  must  be  abol- 
ished, Russia  became  the  leader  in  protecting  the  rights  of 
Denmark. 

Even  in  the  United  States,  where  the  movement  for  the 
final  abolition  took  form,  all  were  not  in  favor  of  the  at- 
titude of  the  State  Department.  Thomas  H.  Benton  in  the 
Senate  held  that  we  should  not  do  anything  to  abrogate  the 

8*  G.  Ft.  de  Martens,  Beoueil,  Vol.  XVII,  Pt.  II,  p.  332;  Joh.  Steenstnip, 
op.  oit.,  Vol.  VI,  Pt  I,  p.  341;  Camb.  Mod.  Hist.,  Vol.  XI,  p.  226. 

»»  DansJce  Tractater,  1751-1800,  p.  232. 

86  Camh.  Mod.  Hist.,  Vol.  XI,  p.  224;  Joh.  Steenstrup,  op.  oit.,  Vol.  VI, 
Pt.  I,  paswm. 

87  Danske  Tractater,  1800-186S,  pp.  220-223. 

88  Camh.,  Mod.  Hist.,  Vol.  XI,  p.  224;   See  also  letter  from  Karl  Marx 
from  London  in  New  York  Triburie,  May  6,  1853. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         77 

Sound  Dues,  but  that  we  should  by  friendly  negotiations 
always  be  sure  that  we  were  treated  on  an  equality  with 
the  most  favored  nations.  Having  given  the  exact  figures 
for  the  year  1850,  he  showed  that  our  commerce  in  the  Sound 
compared  with  that  of  Europe  at  the  ratio  of  one  to  two 
hundred.  ''These  figures  show  the  small  comparative  inter- 
est of  the  United  States  in  the  reduction,  or  abolition  of  the 
dues — large  enough  to  make  the  United  States  desirous  of 
reduction  or  abolition — entirely  too  small  to  induce  her  to 
become  the  champion  of  Europe  against  Denmark;  and, 
taken  in  connection  with  our  geographical  position,  and  our 
policy  to  avoid  European  entanglements,  should  be  sufficient 
to  stamp  as  Quixotic,  and  to  qualify  as  mad,  any  such  at- 
tempt."'" 

One  of  the  members  of  the  House,  Hugh  F.  McDermott, 
published  a  series  of  articles  in  the  New  York  Times  from 
June  1  to  November  6,  1855.  These  were  later  published  in 
pamphlet  form.  The  letters  argued  that  we  should  not 
disturb  the  Sound  Dues  as  such  action  would  be  injurious 
to  Denmark,  a  friendly  nation,  and  would  not  benefit  the 
United  States.  The  Sound  Dues  were  a  part  of  the  Baltic 
tariffs.  All  the  dues  paid  by  the  Prussian  cities  were  re- 
funded by  the  Prussian  government  to  encourage  eastern 
trade,  hence  our  action  would  be  a  great  aid  to  the  Prussian 
treasury.  It  might  be  argued  that  we  would  be  benefited 
by  lower  prices  on  Baltic  products  shipped  to  America.  As  a 
matter  of  fact  this  would  not  be  so  as  all  the  Baltic  countries 
levied  an  export  duty  as  high  as  the  trade  would  bear.  The 
removal  of  the  Sound  Dues  would  give  them  a  chance  to 
raise  the  export  duties  and  we  would  have  gained  nothing. 
He  also  showed  that  according  to  international  law  Denmark 
had  a  well  established  right  to  collect  the  dues.  ''To  suppose 
that  Denmark  would  quietly  submit  to  having  its  ancient 
right  treated  as  a  wrong,  merely  because  the  Cabinet  at 
Washington  declares  it  to  be  such — would  be  an  insult  to 
that  small  but  respectable  nation.  "^° 


39  Thomas  H.  Benton,  Thirty  Years  View,  Vol.  II,  p.  365. 

*o  Hugh    F.   McDermott,    Letters   on   the   Sound-Dues-Question,   by   Pax, 

passim. 


78         IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

Perhaps  a  more  significant  statement  in  regard  to  this 
subject  was  made  by  Secretary  Upshur,  when  in  1843  he 
suggested  that  Denmark  "renders  no  service  in  consideration 
of  that  tax  and  has  not  even  such  right  as  the  power  to 
enforce  it  would  give.*^ 

When  Denmark  was  informed  by  Henry  Bedinger  that 
we  had  decided  to  terminate  the  treaty  of  1826,  she  realized 
that  she  would  have  to  take  definite  action.  In  October, 
1855,  she  sent  a  circular  note  to  the  powers  inviting  them 
to  send  delegates  to  a  congress  to  meet  in  Copenhagen  the 
following  month,  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  the  problem 
of  the  Sound  Dues.  The  note  stated  that  the  time  was  un- 
favorable for  a  settlement  of  the  question,  but  on  account  of 
the  action  taken  by  the  United  States,  it  was  necessary  for 
the  powers  to  come  to  some  agreement  on  the  subject. 
Denmark  wished  to  submit  a  proposition  the  plan  of  which 
she  hoped  would  be  favored  by  the  various  nations  inter- 
ested, and  especially  by  the  United  States.*^ 

Bedinger  wrote  to  Marcy  for  instruction  in  the  matter. 
Marcy  put  the  matter  before  the  President  and  it  was  de- 
cided— and  Bedinger  so  informed — not  to  take  part  in  the 
proposed  congress  for  the  following  reasons:  First,  based 
on  the  hypothesis  that  Denmark  had  the  right  to  collect  the 
Sound  Dues,  the  congress  would  assemble  to  arrange  for 
their  capitalization.  The  United  States  were  unwilling  to  take 
part  in  such  an  arrangement,  because  they  denied  the  basic 
hypothesis.  Second,  the  American  government  wished  to 
vindicate  the  principle  that  the  sea  was  free  to  all.  If  Den- 
mark could  collect  dues  at  the  Sound,  so  could  others  at 
Gibraltar,  Messina,  the  Dardanelles,  and  other  places.  Third, 
the  United  States  did  not  wish  to  become  a  party  to  the 
settlement  of  the  balance  of  power  in  Europe.  The  govern- 
ment understood  from  the  invitation  that  the  Sound  Dues 
would  be  discussed  from  that  angle.  Finally,  the  question 
would  not  be  "considered  as  one  of  commerce  or  money, 
but  as  a  political  one.     This  would  be  in  accordance  with 


«  F.  Hessenland,  Le  Droit  du  Sund,  p.  5. 

*2  Executive  Documents,   34  Cong.,   1   Sess.,   Vol.   I,  Doc.   1,   pp.   33-38; 

New  York  Tribune,  November  16,  1855. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         79 

the  history  of  the  Sound  Dues,  and  with  the  part  which  they 
have  performed  in  the  politics  of  the  north  of  Euroi>e."  The 
American  government  insisted  that  our  international  rights 
should  not  be  restricted  by  or  sacrificed  to  European  ex- 
pediency. The  United  States,  however,  would  not  be  un- 
'willing  to  pay  her  share  of  the  expenses  in  the  upkeep  of 
lights,  improvements  and  protection  of  the  Sounds  and,  in 
fact,  would  be  very  liberal  in  compensating  Denmark  for 
such  outlays.  America  would,  on  the  other  hand,  absolutely 
refuse  to  pay  anything  for  the  use  of  the  free  waters  of  the 
Sound.*3 

Although  the  United  States  refused  to  take  part,  the 
proposed  congress  met  in  Copenhagen.**  Because  of  the  short 
time  which  had  been  given  to  prepare  for  the  sending  of 
delegates,  the  congress  did  not  meet,  as  originally  in- 
tended, in  November  1855.  The  first  session  was  held  on 
January  4,  1856.  It  was  called  to  order  by  Count  Bluhme, 
formerly  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  but  now  Director  of 
the  Bureau  of  Sound  Dues.  He  was  assisted  by  Count 
Sponneck,  Director-General  of  Tariff.  Representatives  were 
present  from  Austria,  Belgium,  France,  Great  Britain,  Hol- 
land, Oldenburg,  Prussia,  Russia,  Spain  and  Sweden.  It  was 
shown  in  this  session  that  the  dues  naturally  fell  into  two 
classes:  first,  those  levied  on  merchandise  according  to  the 
tariff  schedules  of  1841  and  1846 ;  second,  those  levied  on 
shipping.  The  second  class  was  again  divided  into  "light 
dues"  and  "expedition  dues."  The  first  of  these  were  used 
for  the  upkeep  of  lighthouses  and  buoys,  the  second  to  de- 
fray the  expenses  of  the  custom-house.  The  Danish  govern- 
ment did  not  claim  any  compensation  for  the  "expedition 
dues,"  as  the  custom-house  would  not  be  needed  if  the  dues 
were  abolished. 

The    Danish    commissioner    placed    before    the    conference 
tables  compiled  from  the  books  of  the  custom-house,  showing 

<3  Executive  Dooum^nts,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  I,  Doc.  pp.  38-41. 
44  For   the   report   of   the  British   Ambassador,   Andrew   Buchanan   to   his 
government,  see  G.  Fr.  de  Martens,  op.   dt.,  Vol.  XVI,  Pt.  II,  pp  331- 
337,     For  the  Danish  report,   see  "Aflfisning   af   Sund  og   Belttolden," 
Historisk  Tidsskrift,   1858-1859,   3dje   Esekke,   Vol.  I,   pp.   455-559. 


80        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

that  according  to  the  income  from  the  dues  in  the  years 
1851,  1852,  1853,  Denmark  should  receive  60,913,225  rixdollars, 
basing  the  redemption  "at  4  per  cent,  or  25  years'  purchase." 
When  some  of  the  delegates  ventured  to  state  that  this 
amount  was  exorbitant,  the  commissioners  explained  that, 
in  putting  those  figures  before  the  conference,  they  were 
not  making  a  proposal  but  merely  stating  facts,  which  might 
be  used  as  a  basis  of  negotiation. 

The  next  meeting  of  the  conference  was  held  on  February 
2,  1856.  On  this  occasion  Count  Bluhme  presented  figures 
to  show  that  the  average  annual  receipts  on  merchandise 
during  the  years  1842  to  1847  and  1851  to  1853,  inclusive, 
amounted  to  2,098,561  rixdollars.  The  years  1848  to  1850 
were  omitted  as  the  figures  for  those  years  were  inaccurate 
on  account  of  the  war  with  Prussia.  The  amounts  collected 
annually  during  those  same  years  on  shipping  as  "light 
dues"  averaged  150,018  rixdollars.  This  sum  if  redeemed  at 
4  per  cent,  or  25  years'  purchase,  would  amount  to  56,214,- 
475  rixdollars.  The  Danish  government,  having  given  the 
question  careful  consideration,  had  authorized  its  repre- 
sentative to  state  that  it  would  be  willing  to  accept  the  STim 
of  35,000,000  rixdollars  as  a  compensation  for  the  total 
abolition  of  the  Sound  Dues. 

The  quota  to  be  paid  by  each  nation  was  worked  out  in 
the  following  manner.  The  amount  of  dues  collected  from 
each  nation  on  its  ships  passing  the  Sound  for  Baltic  ports, 
during  the  years  mentioned  in  Bluhme 's  reports,  was  aver- 
aged with  the  amount  collected  from  the  same  nation  on 
ships  going  in  the  opposite  direction.  The  annual  sum  was 
then  multiplied  by  twenty-five.  This  as  stated  above  equaled 
56,214,475  rixdollars.  As  Denmark  offered  to  settle  for 
35,000,000  rixdollars  the  amount  to  be  paid  would  be  equal 
to  62.27  per  cent  of  the  original  sum  demanded.  The  following 
table  is  worked  out  from  the  final  treaty,  Buchanan's  re- 
port, and  the  Danish  government's  report. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         81 

Payments   by  the  Leasing  Nations   foe  the  Abolition   of   the 
Sound  Dues 


Nations 


o        in 
o3   08   S 

>  S  a 


<n 

03    CO 

M     Q^     V 

(3  03  eu 


.    *^ 

l-H    <»  "S 

OS    .    .S 

o  a  a  'S 

--3 .2  o  '3 

CO  +i  •  ri  & 
S  03  ta 


ft 


®  fe  o 
«  P  o 

o^  in 


Austria    

Belgium  

Bremen    „ 

France     

Great    Britain 

Hamburg    

Hanover    ._ 

Holland  

Liibeck    

Mecklenburg    

Norway  

Oldenburg    

Prussia    

Eussia    

Sweden    

Nations  which  did 
not  take  part  in  the 
congress  but  later 
paid  their  share 
The  Baltic  in  General. 

Spain  _ 

United   States   

Denmark's  own  share. 


1,890 

19,367 

14,043 

78,315 

650,601 

6,875 

7,927 

90,461 

6,617 

24,006 

42,866 

1,807 

285,250 

625,747 

102,182 


14,899 
65,531 
46,105 
72,088 


47,262 

484,175 

351,075 

1,957,875 

16,265,025 

171,875 

198,175 

2,261,525 

165,425 

600,150 

1,071,650 

45,175 

7,131,250 

15,643,675 

2,554,550 


372,475 
1,638,275 
1,152,628 
1,802,200 


29,434 

301,455 

218,585 

1,219,003 

10,126,855 

107,012 

123,387 

1,408,060 

102,996 

373,663 

667,225 

28,127 

4,440,027 

9,739,993 

1,590,503 


231,909 
1,020,016 

717,829 
1,122,078 


0.09 
0.86 
0.62 
3.48 
28.93 
0.31 
0.35 
4.02 
0.29 
1.07 
1.91 
0.08 
12.62 
27.83 
4.55 


0.66 
2,91 
2.05 
3.21 


This  amounted  to  almost  96  per  cent  of  the  whole.  The  rest  was  paid 
by  smaller  nations,  but  it  appears  that  no  reports  were  published  of 
what  each  of  these  paid. 

Russia,  Oldenburg  and  Sweden  were  the  first  to  notify 
Denmark  of  their  intention  to  accept  their  quotas  as  a  fair 
and  equitable  settlement.  Their  representatives  signed  an 
agreement  recording  their  acceptance,  subject  to  the  con- 
dition that  the  same  terms  should  be  accepted  by  the  other 
powers. 

Two  new  problems  now  appeared.  The  question  arose 
**  whether  the  transit  dues  on  routes  between  the  North-Sea 
or  the  Elbe  and  the  Baltic  ought  not  to  be  reduced  or 
abolished  simultaneously  with  the  Sound  dues,"  as  these 
were  also  under  the  control  of  Denmark.     The  other  prob- 


82         IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

lem  arose  in  England  where  the  government  was  of  the 
opinion  that  Parliament  would  object  to  pay  money  out  of 
the  treasury  to  relieve  burdens  of  a  special  trade/"  After 
further  consideration  England  expressed  her  willingness  to 
pay  a  stipulated  sum  once  for  all,  provided  Denmark  in  the 
future  would  abolish  all  dues  for  the  upkeep  of  the  sound  and 
reduce  the  transit  dues  in  the  duchies.  Denmark  agreed  to 
this. 

While  the  negotiations  were  going  on  between  Great 
Britain  and  Denmark  during  the  summer  of  1856,  Prussia 
and  France  agreed  that  so  important  a  question  as  that  of 
opening  the  Baltic  to  the  world  ought  not  to  be  handled 
by  separate  treaties  but  should  be  embodied  in  a  general 
treaty  to  be  signed  by  Denmark  and  the  majority  of  the 
nations  interested.  As  England  showed  herself  in  harmony 
with  this  idea,  a  draft  of  a  treaty  was  prepared.  Before 
presenting  this  to  Denmark  a  conference  of  the  delegates 
was  held  and  the  draft  submitted  to  discussion.  At  this 
conference  representatives  from  Hanover,  Mecklenburg  and 
the  Hansa  Towns,  besides  those  of  states  formerly  men- 
tioned, were  present.  The  treaty  was  then  presented  to  the 
Danish  government  on  February  3,  1857.  After  making  a 
few  changes,  suggested  by  Denmark,  the  treaty  was  signed 
by  the  members  of  the  congress  on  March  14,  1857.*® 

The  treaty  consists  of  eight  articles.  The  first  article  con- 
tains the  agreement  on  the  part  of  Denmark  to  cease  collecting 
Sound  and  Belt  Dues  of  any  kind,  but  the  Danish  gov- 
ernment retains  the  right  to  make  suitable  arrangements 
with  powers  that  have  not  taken  part  in  the  present 
convention.  In  Article  II,  Denmark  promises  to  keep  up 
the  light-houses,  buoys  and  other  improvements  for  facili- 
tating the  navigation  in  the  Sounds,  the  Belts,  and  the 
Cattegat.  Foreign  vessels  shall  not  be  forced  to  use  Danish 
pilots    in    those    waters,    but    in    case    they    desire    to    use 


*5  Hansard's    Parliamentary    Debates,    Vol.    CXLI,    pp.    180-181;    Ibid., 

Vol.  CXLIV,  pp.  2400-2404;  New   York  Tribune,  August  12,  1856.     For 

an  explanation  of   the   money  used,   see   Appendix   F. 

*•  For  full  text  of  the  treaty,  see  Martens,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  XVI,  Pt.  II,  pp. 

345-358. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         83 

them,  the  fees  shall  be  the  same  as  those  paid  by  Dan- 
ish vessels.  The  transit  dues  between  the  North  Sea  and 
the  Baltic  shall  be  limited  to  16  skilling,  Danish  currency, 
for  each  500  pounds,  Danish  weight.  According  to  Article 
III,  the  treaty  was  to  take  effect  April  1,  1857.  Under 
Article  IV,  the  contracting  parties  agreed  to  pay  to  Dan- 
mark  the  sum  of  30,476,325  rixdollars,  each  party  being  re- 
sponsible for  its  own  share.*^  Article  V  provided  that  the 
specified  amounts  should  be  paid  in  forty  semi-annual  pay- 
ments. Article  VI  authorized  Denmark  to  make  a  special 
treaty  with  each  nation  for  the  mode  of  payment,  the  rate 
of  exchange,  and  the  place  of  payment.  According  to  Article 
VII,  the  treaty  is  subject  to  ratification  in  accordance  with 
the  rules  and  formalities  established  in  the  various  states 
of  the  contracting  parties.  By  Article  VIII,  the  exchange 
of  ratifications  should  take  place  at  Copenhagen  April  1,  1857, 
or  as  soon  as  possible  after  that  date. 

In  accordance  with  this  treaty,  Denmark  made  treaties 
with  the  various  nations  interested  in  the  navigation  of  the 
Sound.***  It  is  evident  from  the  amount  received  by  the 
Danish  government  that  she  was  paid  not  only  for  the  up- 
keep of  improvement  in  the  Sound  and  Belts,  but  also  for 
the  surrender  of  her  right  to  collect  dues.  The  dues  paid 
for  lights,  buoys,  etc.,  known  as  droits  de  fanal,  constituted 
less  than  six  per  cent  of  the  annual  amounts  paid.*®  Denmark 
has  used  the  money  she  received  from  the  various  powers  to 
establish  a  fund,  the  proceeds  of  which  is  used  for  the  upkeep 
of  improvements  in  the  Sound  and  Belts.  This  made  the 
powers  more  willing  to  pay  as  they  did  not  and  could  not 
expect  a  small  nation  at  her  own  expense  to  keep  the  straits 
improved  for  the  benefit  of  the  wealthy  commercial  interests 
of  other  countries.  At  the  same  time  it  was  a  wise  act  for 
Denmark  to  remove  the  problem  entirely  by  accepting  a  cash 

*7  For  the  share  of  each  of  the  contracting  parties,  see  the  table 
given  above. 

48  For  the  text  of  these  treaties,  see  Martens,  op.  cit..  Vol.  XVI,  Pt.  I 

and  Vol.  XVII,  Pt.  II,  passim. 

*9  Martens,  op.  oit.,  Vol.  XVI,  Pt.  II,  p.  344. 


84         IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

payment.  Sooner  or  later  she  might  have  lost  the  Sound  Dues 
without  any  reimbursement.'" 

"When  it  became  evident  that  the  European  powers  were 
willing  to  pay  large  sums  to  Denmark  to  abolish  the  Sound 
Dues,  the  United  States  decided  to  pay  her  share.  On  April 
15,  1857,  a  treaty  was  concluded  between  Lewis  Cass,  Sec- 
retary of  State  under  James  Buchanan,  and  Torben  Bille,  the 
Danish  representative  at  Washington.  We  do  not  know  the 
nature  of  the  negotiations  that  preceded  this  treaty,  as  this 
diplomatic  correspondence  has  not  been  published.  Marcy,  as 
stated  above,  had  declared  that  the  United  States  would  not 
pay  any  money  to  Denmark  for  ceasing  to  collect  the  dues. 
Perhaps  the  fact  that  a  new  man  was  at  the  head  of  our 
foreign  affairs  made  it  easier  for  Torben  Bille  to  negotiate 
the  treaty. 

The  treaty  is  very  short,  and  agrees  in  general  with  the 
treaty  of  March  14,  1857,  between  Denmark  and  the  powers 
represented  at  the  Copenhagen  congress.  It  contains  the  fol- 
lowing points :  Article  I :  the  abolition  of  Sound  Dues  on 
American  vessels  was  recognized  by  the  Danish  government; 
.'^rticle  II:  Denmark  agreed  to  keep  up  the  improvements  of 
the  Sound  and  Belts  as  in  the  past,  and  if  the  increasing 
traffic  in  the  Sound  should  require  additional  improvements, 
Denmark  agreed  to  make  them  without  cost  to  the  United 
States;  Article  III:  the  United  States  agreed  to  pay  $393,011 
or  717,829  rixdoUars,  to  Denmark  on  the  day  when  the  con- 
vention went  into  effect;  Article  IV:  the  United  States  was 
restored  to  her  status  of  most  favored  nation;  Article  V:  the 
treaty  of  1826,  which  was  abrogated  by  the  United  States  on 
April  15,  1856,  became  binding  again  between  the  two  nations, 
Article  V  dealing  with  the  Sound  Dues  excepted;  Article  VT: 
the  convention  should  take  effect  as  soon  as  possible  but  not 
later  than  twelve  months  from  the  date  of  signing;  and  Article 
VII:  exchange  of  ratification  should  take  place  in  Washington 
within  ten  months.'* 


80  John  Steenstrup,  op.  oit.,  Vol.   VT,  Pt.  II,  pp.  183-184. 

51  For   text   of   the   treaty,   see   W.    M,    Malloy,    Treaties,    etc.,   Vol.    I, 

pp.  383;  Senate  Documents,  35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  VII,  Doc.  28. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         85 

The  treaty  was  proclaimed  in  effect  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States  on  January  13,  1858.^^  tj^^  original  amount 
and  interest  equaling  a  total  of  $408,731.44  was  paid  to  Den- 
mark according  to  agreement  in  1858.^^ 

2.     The  Maintenance  of  American  Neutrality. 

Soon  after  the  exchange  of  the  last  note  connected  with  the 
Jones  claims,  a  war  broke  out  between  Denmark  and  the 
German  Bund.  This  is  known  in  Danish  history  as  the  ' '  Three 
Years'  War,"  or  the  "First  Schleswig-Holstein  War,"  1848- 
1850.  The  problem  involved  in  the  conflict  is  of  no  importance 
to  this  work,  and  will  therefore  not  be  discussed.  In  advance 
of  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  Germans  had  been  sent  to  the 
United  States  to  study  naval  plans;  and  American  offijcers 
were  offered  positions  in  the  new  navy  of  the  Bund.^*  When 
the  war  broke  out  this  state  of  affairs  could  not  well  continue, 
and  the  American  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  William  B.  Preston, 
wrote  on  March  19,  1849,  to  Commodore  M.  C.  Perry  that, 
on  account  of  the  war  existing  between  Germany  and  Den- 
mark, he  must  "abstain  from  any  further  participation, 
either  by  advising  or  otherwise,  in  the  preparation  and  equip- 
ment of  the  Steamship  United  States,  now  at  New  York,  re 
cently  purchased  for  the  use  of  the  German  empire.""* 

Meanwhile  the  building  of  this  war  vessel  had  come  to  the 
notice  of  the  Danish  representative,  Steen  Bille,  at  Washing- 
ton. He  appealed  to  Secretary  of  State  John  M.  Clayton  in 
behalf  of  the  Danish  government,  asking  that  work  on  the 
ship  be  stopped,  as  the  intention  was  to  use  the  vessel  against 
Denmark.  Clayton  immediately  advised  Baron  von  Roenne, 
the  German  Minister  to  the  United  States,  that  according  to 
the  law  of  April  20,  1818,  there  was  a  heavy  penalty  for 
fitting  out  a  vessel  in  the  United  States,  if  it  were  to  be  used 
against  a  power  friendly  to  us.     If  the  vessel  United  States 


62  Ihid. 

53  Miscellaneous  Doomnents,  35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  I,  Doc.  50; 
Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  XI,  p.  261.  For  the  whole  subject  of  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  Sound  Dues,  see  Markus  Eubin,  * '  Sundtoldens  Aflfisning," 
Historisk  TidssTcrift.     7de  Rsekke,  6te  Bind;  pp.  172-311. 

54  Senate  Documents,  31  Cong.,  Vol.  I,  Doc.  1,  pp.  21-22. 

55  Ibid.,  p.  28. 


86        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

were  to  be  used  against  Denmark,  we  were  determined  to  act 
vigorously  in  the  ease.  Roenne's  word  of  honor  that  the 
ship  would  not  be  used  would,  however,  be  sufficient  for  us, 
as  we  wanted  the  friendship  of  Germany  as  well  as  of  Den- 
mark.'^ 

In  his  answer  Baron  von  Roenne  stated  that  he  was  much 
surprised  to  learn  from  the  Secretary  of  State  that  the  vessel 
was  ''really"  to  be  used  against  Denmark.  He  himself  was 
in  possession  of  no  such  information.  So  far  as  he  knew,  the 
vessel  would  proceed  from  New  York  harbor  to  Bremerhaven 
and  there  receive  further  orders.  Besides,  he  was  well  aware 
of  the  existence  of  the  act  of  1818  and  in  order  to  avoid 
doing  anything  contrary  to  law  he  had  consulted  a  dis- 
tinguished member  of  the  New  York  bar  on  the  subject.  This 
gentleman  had  informed  him  that,  so  far  as  he  had  the  facts 
in  hand,  he  did  not  feel  that  the  German  government  was  doing 
anything  contrary  to  law.^' 

Secretary  Clayton,  however,  was  not  disposed  to  waste  time 
in  quibbling  and  thus  give  time  for  the  ship  to  escape.  He 
informed  Roenne  that  he  was  sorry  he  had  not  received  an 
answer  to  his  request  for  a  formal  declaration  that  the  vessel 
would  not  be  used  against  a  power  friendly  to  the  United 
States.  He  also  informed  the  German  minister  that  he  had 
secured  an  opinion  from  the  Attorney-General  on  the  sub- 
ject, which  held  that,  since  war  existed  between  Germany  and 
Denmark  and  since  the  vessel  was  being  fitted  out  as  a  war 
vessel,  a  ship  "so  armed  and  fitted,  when  upon  the  high 
seas,  in  a  state  of  war,  is  false  to  its  flag  and  honor,  if  it 
does  not  "commit  hostilities"  upon  an  enemy  whenever  and 
wherever  it  meets  one."  Mr.  Clayton  therefore  hoped  that 
Baron  von  Roenne  would  give  the  assurance  solicited."* 

After  several  exchanges  of  notes,  in  which  the  German 
minister  tried  to  avoid  the  real  issue  and  explain  away  the 
purpose  of  the  vessel,  the  Secretary  of  State  finally  took  the 
stand   that,   since   Roenne   avoided   making   a    full   and   free 

8«  Ibid.,  pp.  49,  32-33.  For  the  Act  of  1818,  see  Statutes  at  Large, 
Vol.  Ill,  pp.  447-450. 

"  Senate  Documents,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  I,  Doc.  1,  pp.  34-38. 
88  Ibid.,  pp.  38-40, 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         87 

promise  that  the  United  States  would  not  be  used  against 
Denmark,  Germany  would  have  to  subscribe  to  the  pro- 
visions of  the  law  of  April  20,  1818,  and  give  a  bond  amount- 
ing to  twice  the  value  of  the  vessel,  its  armament  and  cargo. 
Before  clearing,  the  vessel  would  have  to  be  registered  as  a 
vessel  of  the  German  empire.'^^ 

Germany  tried  to  avoid  the  obligations  of  the  bond  by 
changing  the  name  of  the  vessel  to  the  Horsa,  by  taking  ad- 
vantage of  an  armistice,  and  by  misconstruing  the  Act  of  April 
20,  1818;  but  to  no  avail.  The  United  States  government — ^to  the 
great  satisfaction  of  the  Danish  authorities — held  Germany  rig- 
idly to  the  obligations  of  the  bond.  The  United  States  ar- 
rived at  Liverpool  as  a  peaceful  vessel,  but  it  does  not  appear 
that  she  ever  took  part  in  the  war.  Our  Minister  Niles  at 
Turin  later  stated  to  the  Secretary  of  State  that  European 
statesmen  with  whom  he  had  conversed  expressed  their  appro- 
bation of  the  stand  our  government  had  taken  in  the  case 
of  the  United  States,  and  that  the  strict  observation  of  the 
principles  of  international  morality  would  do  much  to  raise 
the  character  of  the  American  government  in  the  eyes  of 
Europe.®" 

3.     The  Rise  of  the  Butterfield  Claims. 

While  the  United  States  and  Denmark  were  negotiating 
concerning  the  Sound  Dues,  a  very  interesting  case  arose, 
known  in  our  diplomatic  correspondence  as  the  Butterfield 
Claims.  The  negotiations  concerning  these  claims  extended 
over  a  period  of  nearly  forty  years  and  the  matter  was  finally 
settled  by  arbitration. 

In  September,  1854,  the  Benjamin  Franklin,  a  steamship 
of  850  tons  burden,  and  the  bark  Catharine  Augusta  cleared 
from  New  York  harbor  for  the  island  of  St.  Thomas,  one  of 
the  Danish  West  Indies.  Both  vessels  were  equipped  for  war 
and  the  Catharine  Augusta  carried  a  cargo  of  uniforms,  mus- 
kets, ammunition  and  other  material  of  war.  It  was  not  fully 
known  to  whom  these  ships  belonged,  but  they  were  in  charge 
of   a   certain  John  N.   Olcott,   who   executed   a  letter   of  at- 

59  Ibid.,  pp.  48-49. 
80  Ibid.,  pp.  64-68. 


88        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

tomey  which  authorized  Mr.  Jos^  Gener  of  the  City  of  Mex- 
ico to  negotiate  a  sale  for  them.®^ 

Before  the  vessels  left  New  York,  the  Venezuelan  consul 
at  that  port  informed  the  United  States  government  that  the 
vessels  were  being  fitted  out  to  assist  a  rebellion  in  Venezuela, 
which  was  being  conducted  by  General  Jose  A.  Paez.  An 
affidavit  having  been  sworn  out  to  that  effect  by  the  Venezue- 
lan minister,  R.  Azpurua,  the  vessels  were  detained,  and  a 
suit  of  libel  instituted  in  the  Southern  District  of  New  York. 
The  prosecutor,  however,  was  unable  to  sustain  its  charge; 
hence  an  order  was  issued  discharging  the  vessels  from  custody 
and  the  libel  was  dismissed.®^ 

Toward  the  close  of  September,  1854,  the  vessels  arrived  at 
St.  Thomas.  The  Catharine  Augusta  had  suffered  so  much 
from  rough  weather  that  it  was  necessary  for  her  to  make 
repairs  before  she  could  go  further.  It  was  found  that  re- 
pairs could  not  be  made  without  unloading  the  cargo. 

Meanwhile  Charles  Eames,  our  representative  to  Venezuela, 
informed  Charles  J.  Hebn,  our  consul  at  St.  Thomas,  of  the 
suspicion  of  the  Venezuelan  government.  Our  acting  com- 
mercial agent,  John  E.  Ruhl,  answered  Eames,  as  Helm  was 
absent  for  the  time  being.  He  stated  that  the  vessels  had 
already  been  examined  at  New  York,  and  that  if  they  had  ever 
been  intended  for  an  expedition  against  Venezuela  he  was 
sure  that  that  intention  had  now  been  abandoned.  He  added 
that  the  Danish  government  was  aware  of  the  suspicion  and 
had  refused  to  allow  one  of  the  ships  to  unload  her  cargo 
in  order  to  undergo  repairs,  but  he  felt  that,  according  to 
existing  treaty  relations,  Denmark  could  not  persist  in  her 
refusal  although  she  might  attach  conditions  to  her  permis- 
sion." 

When  Helm  returned,  the  Danish  authorities  finally  gave 
permission  to  allow  the  Catharine  Augusta  to  be  unloaded. 
Pour   conditions,    however,    were   attached   to   the   permission. 


61  Executive  Documents,  45  Cong.,  3  Sess.,  Vol.  X"VT,  Doc.  33,  pp.  1,  2. 
«2  Ibid.,  p.  3;  New  York  Tribune,  August  4,  8,  15,  September  5,  15,  1854. 
«3  Executive  Documents,  45  Cong.,  3  Sess.,  Vol.  XVI,  Doc.  33,  pp. 
3-4;  New  York  Tribune,  October  20,  1854;  November  21,  1854;  De- 
cember   1,   1854. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         89 

First,  the  unloading  must  be  done  under  Helm's  personal 
supervision.  Second,  the  material  unloaded  should  remain 
in  storage  until  H.  H.  Berg,  the  governor  of  the  island,  and 
Helm  were  both  satisfied  that  it  had  a  legitimate  destination. 
Third,  no  breach  of  the  laws  of  nations  or  treaty  stipulations 
should  be  permitted.  And  fourth,  a  bond  of  $20,000  was  re- 
quired to  secure  faithful  performance  of  duty.  This  was 
entered  into  voluntarily  by  the  people  controlling  the  vessels.** 

While  the  Catherine  Augusta  was  being  repaired,  the  Ben- 
jamin Franklin  was  idle  in  the  port.  As  the  British  steamer, 
Parana  from  Southampton  was  late  in  arriving  at  St.  Thomas 
and  the  various  windward  and  leeward  bound  mail  steamers 
had  left,  J.  B.  Cameron,  the  agent  for  the  British  Royal  Mail 
Steam  Packet  Co.,  chartered  the  Benjamin  Franklin  to  carry 
the  newly  arrived  passengers  and  mail  to  the  Windward  Is- 
lands and  Barbadoes.  The  vessels  of  the  Royal  Mail  Steam 
Packet  Co.  had  the  privilege  at  any  time  to  enter  or  leave  the 
St.  Thomas  harbor  without  notification.  When  the  Benjamin 
Franklin  had  cleared,  it  sailed  out  of  the  harbor  after  sunset 
on  December  21,  1854.  As  it  passed  Fort  Frederick,  the 
commander  of  the  fort,  Major  Castonier,  fired  on  the  vessel. 
He  claimed  later  that  he  had  no  official  notice  that  the  vessel 
was  to  be  allowed  to  leave.  According  to  his  orders  therefore, 
he  fired  a  blank  shot  fore  and  aft.  As  the  vessel  did  not 
stop  he  lodged  a  shot  in  the  hulk.  Fortunately  no  one  was 
harmed.  The  vessel  did  not  turn  till  the  fourth  shot  was 
fired.«« 

This  affair  created  quite  a  stir.  The  shot  which  was  lodged 
in  the  hulk  of  the  vessel  came  very  near  harming  several 
individuals.  From  the  correspondence  it  seems  that  Major 
Castonier  knew  that  the  Benjamin  Franklin  was  to  leave  but 
he  had  been  informed  that  the  vessel  would  "be  cleared  as 
usual  by  the  consignees."  The  fact  that  he  knew  of  the  sus- 
picion attached  to  the  vessel,  and  that  the  clearance  was  not 
reported  to  him  by  the  captain  of  the  vessel  nor  by  the 
company  officials,  made  him  think  that  she  was  sneaking  out 
of  the   harbor  unlawfully.     According  to   report,   the   sequel 

8*  Executive  Documents,  45  Cong.,  3  Sess.,  Vol.  XVI,  Doc.  33,  p.  5. 
«5  Ibid.,  pp.  7-9,  24,  29. 


90        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

was  that  JMajor  Castonier  was  court-martialed,  reduced  in  rank 
and  transferred  to  St.  Croix,  The  truth  is  that  the  commander 
and  Governor  Berg  did  not  agree  very  well,  and  this  was 
the  cause  of  his  transfer.  The  Benjamin  Franklin  proceeded 
on  her  journey  as  soon  as  she  was  repaired.®' 

Meanwhile  the  repairs  of  the  Catharine  Augusta  were  com- 
pleted and  Jose  Gener  succeeded  in  selling  the  two  vessels 
and  the  cargo  to  the  Mexican  government  through  the  firm 
Cammet  and  Co.  The  vessels  were  to  be  delivered  to  any 
port  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  demanded  by  the  buyers;  and 
the  price  was  fixed  at  $500,000  cash.  "When,  however,  the 
Mexican  government  learned  of  the  suspicion  in  regard  to 
the  original  destination  of  the  vessels,  the  offer  was  withdrawn 
in  order  to  avoid  complications  with  Venezuela.®^  Somewhat 
later  Jose  Gener  succeeded  in  selling  the  vessels  directly  to 
the  Mexican  government  but  at  a  very  reduced  price.^* 

On  May  7,  1855,  J.  T.  Pickett,  our  consul  at  Vera  Cruz, 
having  received  authority  from  John  N.  Olcott,  asked  the 
Danish  authorities  at  St.  Thomas  for  the  delivery  of  the  cargo. 
Governor  Berg  replied  that  the  papers  presented  were  alto- 
gether too  general  in  their  nature  to  prove  that  the  pro- 
visions under  which  the  cargo  had  been  unloaded  would  be 
fulfilled.  Besides,  the  bond  for  $20,000  given  by  Moron  and 
Company  would  still  be  binding  until  the  cargo  arrived  at 
San  Bias,  Mexico,*®  which  was  its  final  destination  as  stated 
by  Pickett.  Indeed,  the  Danish  government  would  demand 
proof  of  the  arrival  of  the  cargo  at  the  said  port  before  the 
bond  could  be  released.  Taking  advantage  of  a  clause  in  the 
bond  which  stated  that  duty  would  be  paid  on  the  cargo  "in 
the  event  of  its  being  exported  for  the  account  of  others  but 
the  original  owners,"  the  authorities  claimed  that,  since  the 
Mexican  government  was  now  the  owner  of  the  cargo,  duty 
should  be  paid.  The  owners,  on  the  contrary,  claimed  that 
the  Mexican   government  would  not  become  the  owner  until 


««  rbid.,    pp.    25,   27;    New    York    Tribune,   January    12,    1855;    May   1, 

1855. 

«7  Executive  Documents,  45  Cong.,  3  Sess.,  Vol.  XVI,  Doc.  33,  pp.  13-14. 

«8  Hid.,  p.  16,  53-54. 

•»  San  Bias  is  on  the  Pacific  coast  in  the  district  of  Tepic. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         91 

the  cargo  was  delivered  at  San  Bias.  After  some  delay  the 
proper  documents  were  produced.  It  appears  that  the  author- 
ities waived  the  claim  for  duty. 

Clearance  was  given  to  the  two  ships  on  May  26,  1855.^°  The 
Benjamin  Franklin,  it  was  claimed,  was  so  badly  damaged  by 
the  shot  fired  at  her  that  she  had  to  be  taken  to  Norfolk, 
•Va.,  for  partial  repairs  and  later  to  Baltimore  where  the 
repairs  were  completed.  From  this  place  the  vessel  was 
cleared  for  Vera  Cruz  where  she  arrived  in  January,  1856. 
The  contract  of  sale  had  been  changed  to  allow  this.  The 
CatJiarine  Augusta  started  on  her  long  journey  around  Cape 
Horn  for  San  Bias.  Being  badly  worm-eaten  because  of  her 
stay  at  St.  Thomas  and  encountering  bad  weather  and  rough 
seas,  she  was  forced  to  lay  in  at  Pernambuco,  Brazil,  for 
repairs.  The  contract  of  sale  having  been  changed  in  her 
case  also,  she  arrived  at  Vera  Cruz  in  June,  1856,'^^ 

The  owners  of  the  vessels  felt  that  their  property  had 
been  damaged  by  reason  of  the  action  of  the  Danish  author- 
ities in  St.  Thomas.  They  held  Denmark  responsible  for  their 
losses  for  the  following  reasons:  the  firing  of  the  shot  at  the 
Benjamin  Franklin;  the  unsuccessful  transaction  through 
Cammet  &  Co.,  caused  by  the  suspicion  of  the  Danish  author- 
ities; the  loss  on  their  capital  by  the  delay  in  releasing  the 
cargo  of  the  Catharine  Augusta;  and  the  worm-eaten  condi- 
tion of  the  same  ship  caused  by  its  detention.  In  October, 
1857,  a  claim  was  prepared  including  the  following  items: 

Value   of   the   two   vessels    and   the   cargo $500,000 

Actually  received  in  cash - ^ $315,000 

Loss    through    reduced     sale    price     and     de- 
preciated  Mexican   certificates — — .  $185,000 

Interest   at   12   per   cent   on  $185,000   Sept.    1, 

1855  to  September  1,  1857 44,400 

Repairs,  interest,  traveling  expenses,  translation 
fees,  documents,  etc.,  having  their  origin  in 
the  acts  of  the  Danish  authorities 72,814.08 


Total _ 301,814.08 


TO  Ibid.,  pp.  63-64. 
Ti  Ibid.,  p.  64. 


92        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

Interest  on  this  amount  from  September  1,  1857,  to  the  date 
of  final  pajTnent  of  the  claim  was  to  be  added  to  this  sum/'' 
On  June  20,  1860,  this  bill  with  claim  for  payment  was 
laid  before  Mr.  Hall,  the  Danish  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs, 
by  James  M.  Buchanan,  our  representative  at  Copenhagen. 
Two  months  later  a  reply  was  received  in  which  the  Danish 
government  claimed  it  was  not  liable  for  damages  because 
the  authorities  at  St.  Thomas  in  delaying  the  vessels  had 
done  nothing  more  than  their  duty.^^  As  the  settlement  of 
this  case  will  be  treated  in  a  later  chapter.  Hall's  reply  will 
be  treated  there. 


72  Ibid.,  pp.  53-54,  64.     The  bill  is  abreviated  from  the  original. 
18  Ibid.,  pp.  56-59. 


CHAPTER  V. 

DANISH   AMERICAN   RELATIONS    RESULTING    FROM 
THE  CIVIL  WAR,  1860-1872 

Most  of  the  incidents  treated  in  this  chapter  had  their  origin 
either  directly  or  indirectly  in  the  Civil  War.  It  is  pleasant 
to  relate  that  during  the  trying  days  of  this  war  Denmark 
stood  as  a  firm  and  never  swerving  friend  of  the  Union  gov- 
ernment. The  Danish  government  was  one  of  the  few  which 
did  not  want  to  see  the  United  States  di\'ided. 

1.     Negotiations  Concerning  the  Confederacy. 

In  her  diplomatic  relations  with  foreign  powers,  the  United 
States  had  two  definite  problems  that  sprang  directly  from 
secession.  The  more  prominent  of  these  was  the  need  to  pre- 
vent the  Confederacy  from  obtaining  aid  in  European  coun- 
tries. The  other  problem  was  to  forestall  the  recognition  of 
the  independence  of  the  Confederacy. 

It  was  natural  that  the  South  should  attempt  to  secure  aid 
from  foreign  powers.  This  was  foreseen  at  Washington. 
Even  before  the  first  battle  of  Bull  Run,  Secretary  of  State 
Seward  wrote  to  Bradford  R.  Wood,  our  representative  at 
Copenhagen,  warning  him  to  cambat  any  movement  that 
might  be  made  by  the  Confederacy  to  obtain  aid  from  Den- 
mark. As  a  result.  Wood  sounded  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs,  M.  Hall,  concerning  his  attitude  towards  the  re- 
bellion. Hall's  answer  was  definite  and  clear.  He  was  decid- 
edly in  favor  of  the  Union  in  its  struggle  against  the  rebellion. 
He  even  went  a  step  further  and  despatched  a  man-of-war 
to  the  Danish  West  Indies  for  the  purpose  of  preventing 
privateering  and   illicit  trade  and   of  preserving  neutrality.' 

From  time  to  time  Confederate  emissaries  visited  Copen- 
hagen for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  aid  and  recognition,  but 
the  Danish  authorities  refused  to  receive  them  as  govern- 
mental representatives.  Dudley  Mann,  who  was  sent  to  Copen- 
hagen by  the  Confederacy,  finally  succeeded  in  getting  a  pri- 

1  Foreign  delations  of  the  United  States,  1861-1862,  Pt.  I,  pp.  311-314. 

98 


94         IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

vate  interview  with  Hall.  He  attempted  to  prove  that  the 
Union  strength  was  giving  way,  as  was  shown  by  the  fact 
that  gold  was  much  higher  in  the  North  than  in  the  South. 
He  hoped  that  Denmark  would  not  be  the  last  nation  to 
recognize  the  independence  of  his  government.  Hall  replied 
that  other  sources  of  information  convinced  him  that  the 
success  of  the  Confederacy  was  by  no  means  sure.  In  regard 
to  the  question  of  recognizing  the  independence  of  the  South 
he  stated,  "that  though  Denmark  might  not  be  the  last  to  do 
this,  she  certainly  would  not  be  the  first.'"* 

In  spite  of  this  attitude,  rumor  reached  the  United  States 
that  Denmark  had  recognized  the  independence  of  the  Con- 
federacy. Wood  was  instructed  to  request  the  Danish  officials 
to  revise  the  decree  in  which  this  action  had  been  taken.''  Upon 
investigation  it  was  learned  that  the  rumor  was  untrue.  In 
1865  when  Bluhme  became  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  in 
Denmark  he  stated  to  Wood  "that  the  government  of  the 
King  has  never  recognized  the  so-called  Confederate  States  as 
a  belligerent  party."* 

When  the  Second  Schleswig-Holstein  War  broke  out  in 
1863,  the  United  States  showed  its  good  will  towards  Den- 
mark by  strictly  enforcing  her  neutrality  laws,  so  that  the 
German  powers  received  no  aid  from  America.  The  war, 
however,  threatened  the  traffic  between  New  York  and  the 
ports  of  northwestern  Germany,  especially  Bremen  and  Ham- 
burg. Seward  requested  Denmark  to  allow  this  traffic  to 
continue  as  it  was  very  valuable  to  us,  "more  so  now  than 
heretofore,  owing  to  the  embarrassment  of  our  commerce." 
He  wanted  Denmark  clearly  to  understand  that  it  was  not 
a  demand  but  that,  if  the  Danish  government  would  make 
the  concession  and  allow  the  steamers  to  continue  to  ply  be- 
tween the  two  points,  we  would  consider  it  "as  a  gratifying 
evidence  of  the  friendship  and  good  will  of  Denmark."'^  From 
the   later   correspondence   it   does   not    appear   directly   what 


2  Foreign  Belations  of  the  United  States,  1862,  p.  780. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  778. 

*  Foreign  Belations  of  the  United  States,  1865-1866,  Pt.  Ill,  p.  179. 

8  Ibid.,  1864-1865,  Pt.  IV,  pp.  342-343. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         95 

answer  was  given  to  this  request;  but  it  seems  that  Wood 
must  have  made  satisfactory  arrangements,  for  Seward  in  one 
of  his  dispatches  included  the  following  sentence:  "Your  pro- 
ceedings in  regard  to  the  Bremen  steamers  are  approved."* 

It  was  the  practice  of  Captain  Charles  Wilkes,  made  famous 
by  the  \Tr&nt  affair,  to  sail  into  neutral  ports  and  watch 
neutral  vessels.  If  he  suspected  that  a  vessel  was  carrying  on 
illicit  trade,  he  would  follow  her  and  capture  her  as  soon  as 
she  was  out  of  territorial  waters.  This  occurred  most  fre- 
quently at  St.  Thomas.  In  June,  1863,  Denmark  com- 
plained that  Wilkes  misused  her  friendly  hospitality  and  asked 
that  the  practice  be  stopped.  As  a  result  an  order  was  is- 
sued to  the  Navy  Department  in  July  by  President  Lincoln, 
and  since  complaints  ceased  thereafter,  it  may  be  concluded 
that  the  order  was  obeyed.^ 

2.     The  Case  of  the  Jiirgen  Lorentzen. 

The  friendly  attitude  of  the  two  powers  towards  each  other 
during  the  Civil  War  period  was  well  exemplified  in  two 
maritime  cases  which  arose.  The  first  of  these  was  connected 
with  the  bark  Jiirgen  Lorentzen  of  Aabenraa.  On  December 
26,  1861,  this  vessel  with  a  cargo  of  coffee  and  under  the 
command  of  Captain  T.  W.  Eeimer  was  on  its  way  from  Rio 
de  Janeiro  to  Havana,  Cuba,  where  it  was  to  receive  further 
orders.  At  eleven  o'clock  in  the  forenoon  she  met  the  United 
States  warship  Morning  Light  in  7°  N.  Lat.  38°  30'  W.  Long, 
a  location  almost  due  north  of  Ceara,  Brazil.  Lieutenant 
H.  T.  Moore,  who  commanded  the  American  vessel,  demanded 
the  papers  of  the  Jiirgen  Lorentzen.    As  these  stated  that  she 

«  Ibid.,  p.  344.  The  friendly  relations  that  existed  between  the  two 
nations  was  perhaps  augmented  by  President  Lincoln,  when  in  the  fall 
of  1862  he  sent  a  pair  of  Colt's  pistols  to  the  Danish  King.  '  His 
Majesty  was  very  much  pleased  and  expressed  freely  his  hope  that  the 
Union  would  be  preserved.  Eef erring  to  this  gift  B.  E.  Wood  stated: 
"I  think  the  Danish  officials  appreciate  vpry  highly  this  kindness  on 
the  part  of  the  President;  for,  whatever  may  be  their  opinion  as  to 
the  possibility  of  preserving  the  Union,  they,  unlike  some  others,  do 
not  wish  its  destruction."  Foreign  Belations  of  the  United  States, 
1863,   Pt.  II,  pp.   1188-1189. 

7  The  Diary  of  Gideon  Welles,  1861-1869,  Vol.  I,  pp.  322,  325,  451-452. 


96        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

might  go  to  New  Orleans  or  to  New  York  and  as  he  did  not 
examine  the  ship's  register  nor  the  papers  proving  her  na- 
tionality, he  took  it  for  granted  that  she  was  on  an  unlawful 
journey  to  a  Southern  city.  He  put  Lieutenant  P.  Giraud 
and  several  other  Americans  on  board  the  vessel  and  ordered 
them  to  take  the  ship  to  New  York.  He  put  seven  of  the 
Danish  crew  on  board  his  own  vessel  and  forced  them  to  serve 
as  a  part  of  his  crew.  Captain  Reimer  claimed  he  was  badly 
treated  by  the  captors. 

The  Danish  representative  at  Washington,  General  W.  R. 
Raasloff,  brought  the  matter  to  the  attention  of  our  govern- 
ment and  asked  for  an  investigation.  The  Secretaries,  Wil- 
liam H.  Seward  and  Gideon  Welles,  did  all  in  their  power 
to  uncover  the  facts  and  found  that  the  allegations  were 
largely  true.  Lieutenants  Giraud  and  Moore  excused  them- 
selves by  stating  that  some  of  the  complaints  were  not  well 
founded,  and  that  others,  though  well  founded,  were  the 
result  of  inexperience  and  zeal  to  serve  their  country.  Mt>ore 
requested  that,  if  his  explanation  were  not  satisfactory,  he 
might  be  ordered  to  go  to  Washington  for  a  full  investigation. 

The  American  authorities,  however,  did  not  wish  to  prolong 
the  discussions.  Seeing  that  Denmark  should  not  be  made 
to  suffer  for  the  inexperience  of  our  men,  they  offered  to 
settle  the  matter  by  arbitration.  As  the  case  was  largely 
a  question  in  regard  to  facts  and  involved  no  vital  point 
of  international  law  or  honor.  General  Raasloff  accepted  the 
offer  in  behalf  of  the  injured  party.  A  commission  of  two 
men  was  to  be  appointed  and  both  sides  agreed  to  abide  by 
its  decision.  William  H.  Seward  appointed  Moses  Taylor  of 
New  York  and  General  Raasloff  appointed  H.  Dollner,  the 
Danish  consul  at  New  York.  After  a  thorough  investigation 
they  agreed  on  a  statement  of  damages  covering  eleven 
points  and  amounting  to  $1,850.  The  original  amount  claimed 
was  $2,646.57.  The  master  of  the  Jurgen  Lorentzen  waived 
all  claims  for  damages  on  his  own  part.*  On  March  14,  1862, 
President  Lincoln  transmitted  to  Congress  a  copy  of  the 
correspondence    and    the    findings    of    the    commission.      He 


8  Bouse  Executive  Documenta,  37  Cong.,   2  Sesa.,  Vol.  V,  Pt.   n,  Doc 
78,  pp.  1-9. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         97 

recommended  that  an  appropriation  be  made  for  the  amount 
awarded  by  the  referees.®  Congress  followed  the  President's 
advice  and  the  case  was  thus  settled  without  bad  feelings.^" 

3.     The  Case  of  the  Stonewall. 

The  second  maritime  case  that  arose  during  the  Civil  War 
concerned  a  Confederate  cruiser.  In  the  latter  part  of  the 
year  1864  it  came  to  the  notice  of  our  representatives  in 
Denmark,  Consul  George  P.  Hansen  at  Elsinore  and  Minister 
Bradford  R.  Wood  at  Copenhagen,  that  an  ''iron-clad,  brig- 
rigged,  steam  ram"  had  come  to  Copenhagen  from  Bordeaux, 
France,  where  it  had  been  built  by  the  firm  Arman.  The  ship 
bore  the  name  Stcerkodder,  and  it  had  arrived  under  the 
French  flag  without  guns.  The  armament  arrived  later  in  a 
British  vessel.  Soon  after  the  vessel's  arrival  her  French 
crew  Avas  discharged,  and  the  vessel  remained  in  the  harbor 
till  January,  1865.  At  this  time  either  De  Reviere,  the  agent 
of  Arman,  or  Puggard,  a  Danish  merchant  to  whom  she  was 
consigned,  applied  for  permission  to  secure  a  Danish  crew 
to  sail  her  back  to  Bordeaux  under  the  Danish  flag. 

Since  the  Danish  government,  which  had  originally  or- 
dered the  ship  built,  had  refused  to  accept  the  vessel  on  the 
ground  of  non-compliance  with  construction  regulations,  this 
permission  was  given.  She  sailed  into  the  Cattegat,  but  re- 
turned soon  after  for  some  cause  or  other  and  landed  De 
Reviere.  She  later  put  into  Christiansand,  Norway,  to  take 
in  coal,  the  money  for  which  had  been  furnished  by  De 
Reviere.  She  proceeded  to  the  coast  of  Holland,  where  she  took 
on  board  De  Reviere  and  ''another  man"  and  sailed  for 
Quiberon  Bay  where  she  anchored  in  French  waters.  The 
Danish  captain  and  crew  were  now  informed  that  the  ship 
had  been  sold,  after  which  they  departed  taking  the  Danish 
flag  with  them.  The  vessel,  which  at  various  times  was  known 
as  the  Sphinx,  the  Stcerkodder,  the  Olinde,  and  the  Stonewall, 
received  coal  from  a  French  collier,  and  ammunition  and  a 
crew  from  an  English  vessel.     She  then  unfurled   the   Con- 


0  J.  D.  Richardson,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  VI,  p.  70. 

10  House  Journal,  37  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  pp.  459,  498,  524,  525,  568,  600, 
606,  618,  635;  Senate  Journal,  37  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  pp.  339,  357,  419, 
421,  429;  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  XII,  pp.  902. 


98        IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

federate  flag.  The  crew  which  came  on  board  was  the  old 
crew  of  the  Florida}^  Captain  V.  P.  Page  became  her  master.^* 
As  it  looked  on  the  surface,  Denmark  had  been  guilty  of 
selling  a  vessel  to  the  Confederate  States.  The  general  opinion 
was  that  she  had  ordered  the  vessel  while  her  war  with 
Prussia  and  Austria  was  going  on;  being  poverty  stricken  at 
the  end  of  the  disastrous  conflict,  she  had  taken  the  opportun- 
ity to  sell  a  piece  of  property  worthless  to  her.  In  that  case 
she  was  guilty  of  a  very  unfriendly  act  and  ought  to  be 
held  responsible  for  the  results.^^  The  Danish  government, 
however,  put  up  a  very  strong  case  for  its  innocence  in  the 
matter.  In  a  communication  from  Minister  Bluhme  to  B.  R. 
Wood  in  March,  1865,  the  following  facts  were  set  forth  to 
justify  Denmark's  conduct  in  the  case:  First,  the  vessel, 
which  was  already  in  the  process  of  building,  had  been  con- 
tracted for  by  the  Danish  government  in  March,  1864,  on 
the  condition  that  she  should  be  finished  by  June  10.  The 
work  of  completing  her  was  to  be  under  the  control  of  a 
Danish  naval  officer  and  according  to  certain  specifications. 
Second,  Schonheyder,  who  was  the  officer  appointed  to  super- 
vise the  work,  refused  to  accept  the  vessel  because  she  was 
not  constructed  according  to  contract.  Third,  Arman,  hoping 
that  the  Danish  government  might  accept  the  vessel  in  spite 
of  Shonheyder's  action,  sent  the  vessel  from  Bordeaux  to 
Copenhagen  at  his  own  risk.  For  the  sake  of  saving  expense 
the  French  captain  and  crew  had  been  dismissed  immediately 
upon  arrival.  Fourth,  the  Danish  naval  authorities  having 
inspected  the  vessel  refused  to  accept  her,  and  consequently 
the  contract  was  annulled.  Fifth,  since  the  vessel  must  now 
be  returned  to  Bordeaux,  permission  was  given  to  allow  Arman 
to  secure  a  Danish  captain  and  crew."     In  view  of  all  these 


11  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States,  1865-1866,  Pt.  II,  p.  220; 
Pt.  Ill,  pp.  166-173. 

12  Ibid.,  Pt.   II,   p.  216. 

13  For  this  view,  see  J.  T.  Scharf,  History  of  the  Confederate  States 
Navy,  pp.  804-806;  David  D.  Porter,  The  Naval  History  of  the  Civil 
War,  pp.  823-827. 

!•»  French  law  prohibited  a  vessel  from  sailing  under  French  flag,  unless 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920         99 

circumstances,  the  Danish  government  was  "entirely  un- 
connected" with  the  transfer  of  the  vessel  as  she  had  never 
been  Danish  property.^^ 

In  a  later  communication  from  Bluhme  it  was  declared 
•that,  if  any  Danish  citizen  should  in  any  way  break  the  laws 
of  neutrality,  very  heavy  punishment  would  be  meted  out  to 
him  upon  his  conviction.  While  several  investigations  were 
held,  it  does  not  appear  that  anyone  was  punished.^® 

It  is  well  established  that,  during  the  early  part  of  the 
Civil  War,  Napoleon  III  of  France  did  not  object  to  the 
building  of  Confederate  cruisers  in  French  ports.  Conse- 
quently the  Confederates  ordered  six  very  powerful  ships 
to  be  built  by  French  firms.  One  of  these  was  the  Sphinx. 
Together  with  its  sister  ship  Cheops  it  was  being  built  at 
Bordeaux  by  Arman.  A  little  later,  while  these  ships  were 
being  constructed,  Napoleon  realized  that  it  was  bad  for  his 
Mexican  policy  to  allow  such  action;  hence  he  ordered  the 
discontinuance  of  further  building.  It  was  therefore  neces- 
sary for  the  firm  Arman  to  sell  them  to  some  neutral  power. 
As  a  result  of  this  the  Sphinx  was  sold  to  Denmark.  This 
agrees  with  Bluhme 's  statement  that  when  the  Danish  gov- 
ernment ordered  the  vessel  to  be  built  it  was  already  under 
construction. 

What  happened  at  this  juncture  it  is  difficult  to  learn. 
Denmark  certainly  wanted  the  ship  in  the  early  part  of  1864 
as  she  was  then  at  war.  Perhaps  Arman  found  that  the  time 
was  too  short  and  so  hurried  the  work  too  much.  This  may 
have  resulted  in  poor  construction,  which  was  the  pretext 
for  Denmark's  refusal  to  accept  the  vessel.  Another  prob- 
ability exists.  The  Confederate  agents  may  have  bribed  the 
firm  to  deviate  from  the  specifications  of  the  Danish  contract 
so  that  the  vessel  would  not  be  acceptable  to  that  govern- 
ment. At  any  rate  Arman  had  been  informed  by  Shonheyder 
that  the  Danish  government  would  not  accept  the  vessel.     The 


at  least  two-thirds  of  the  crew  were   French.     Foreign  Belations  of  the 

United  States,  1865-1866,   Pt.  Ill,  p.  168. 

15  For  text  of  the  letter,  see  ibid.,  pp.  173-174. 

18  Ibid.,  pp.  174,  175,  176,  178. 


100       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

trip  to  Copenhagen  was  without  any  doubt  planned  to  evade 
the  French  laws  and  get  the  vessel  away  from  Bordeaux. 
This  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  the  Stcerkodder  had  180  tons 
of  coal  on  board  when  she  left  Bordeaux,  an  amount  about 
twice  as  great  as  was  needed  for  a  trip  to  Copenhagen  and 
return.  Besides,  she  put  in  at  Cherbourg  on  her  way  north 
and  took  on  more  coal.  If  Arman  honestly  hoped  to  get  the 
Danish  government  to  accept  the  ram,  why  should  he  have  been 
so  anxious  to  fill  her  bunkers  with  coal?^^ 

It  seems  clear  that  the  responsibility  for  the  escape  of  the 
Stonewall  rests  with  the  firm  Arman.  His  agent,  Amous  de  la 
Reviere  was  a  contract  broker  for  the  Confederate  govern- 
ment. This  gentleman  was  angry  with  the  Union  government 
because  when  he  offered  to  make  guns  for  the  United  States 
he  had  been  refused.^  He  had  no  right  to  clear  the  vessel 
at  Copenhagen  for  Bordeaux  and  fail  to  complete  the  voyage. 
It  would  devolve  on  the  French  government  to  punish  the 
perpetrators  if  the  Stonewall  should  commit  any  act  detri- 
mental to  the  United  States.  France  would  be  responsible  to 
the  United  States  for  whatever  might  happen,  as  England  was 
forced  to  be  for  the  acts  of  the  Alabama  and  others. 

The  Stonewall  proceeded  into  Spanish  waters  and  later 
crossed  the  Atlantic.  When  the  war  ended  the  Confederacy 
surrendered  her  to  the  Spanish  government  of  Cuba,  which 
delivered  her  to  the  United  States.  Later  she  was  sold  to 
Japan.  As  she  never  succeeded  in  doing  any  harm  it  does 
not  appear  that  Arman  or  his  agent  was  punished.^® 

4.     The  Question  of  Allegiance. 

One  of  the  great  measures  passed  by  Congress  during  the 
Civil  War  was  the  law  popularly  known  as  the  Homestead 
Act.  The  fact  that  a  man  could  secure  a  large  tract  of  land 
simply  by  settling  on  it  caught  the  fancy   of  thousands  of 


IT  Ibid.,  Pt.  n,  pp.  213-219.  John  Bigelow,  who  was  United  States 
Minister  to  France  in  1865,  has  given  a  very  fine  account  of  this 
aflFair  in  his  book  France  and  the  Confederate  Navy,  pp.  57-103.  He 
ezonorates  Denmark, 

"  Foreign  Belations  ot  the  United  States,  1865-1866,  Pt.  H,  pp.  211-212; 
Pt.  m,  p.  166. 

i»  John  Bigelow,  op.  eft.,  pp.  81-108. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       101 

people  in  Denmark.  The  man  who  in  that  country  labored  a 
life  time  and  through  hard  toil  and  prudent  management  was 
able  to  become  the  possessor  of  a  few  acres  had  reasons 
for  feeling  proud  at  the  end  of  his  life's  journey.  Wliat  a 
contrast  to  the  American  conditions  under  which  160  acres 
might  be  had  almost  for  the  asking!  The  Dane  is  proverbially 
a  farmer,  but  before  the  Civil  War  comparatively  few  Danes 
had  migrated  to  the  United  States.  The  opening  up  of  the 
Mississippi  valley,  coupled  with  the  fact  that  title  to  land 
could  be  secured  easily,  caused  the  Danish  population  in  the 
United  States  to  increase  from  9,962  to  35,431  between  1860 
and  1870.20 

The  Danes  in  America  did  not  forget  to  inform  their  rel- 
atives in  the  old  country  of  the  wonderful  opportunities 
that  existed  h^re.  In  a  circular  letter  sent  by  a  Danish 
Baptist  church  in  Wisconsin,  June  10,  1862,  to  the  Baptist 
churches  in  Denmark  is  found  the  following  extract.  "As 
far  as  our  earthly  conditions  are  concerned  we  must  say  that 
they  are  very  good.  The  land  is  rich  and  produces  an 
abundance  of  all  things,  so  that  the  cost  of  living  is  low  .... 
The  government  is  also  very  good  and  has  recently  passed 
a  law  by  which  each  man  can  get  160  acres  of  land  if 
he  will  settle  on  it.  This  law  will  be  a  great  boon  to  a  large 
number  of  our  younger  men,  who  have  decided  to  go  out 
together  and  each  get  a  piece  of  land,  if  the  Lord  wills  it."^^ 
The  influence  of  letters  of  this  type  is  shown  abundantly  in 
the  large  Danish  settlements  in  the  Mississippi  valley. 

The  increased  number  of  immigrants  raised  the  problem  of 
naturalization  and  allegiance.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that 
England  did  not  recognize  expatriation,  but  she  was  not  the 
only  nation  which  took  that  stand.  Our  diplomats  abroad 
were  constantly  appealed  to  by  American  citizens  of  foreign 
birth  because,  when  they  returned  to  the  mother  countrv  for 


20  statistics  of  the  United  States,  Census  1850,  p.  XXXVII;  Eighth 
Census  of  the  United  States,  1860,  p.  liii;  Ninth  Census  of  the  United 
States,  1870,  p.   338. 

21  The  original  of  this  letter  was  found  in  Denmark  by  Rev.  August 
Broholm.  It  is  preserved  in  the  archives  of  the  Danish  Baptists  in 
America,  located  at  Clarke's  Grove,  Minn. 


102       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

a  visit,  they  were  pressed  into  the  military  service,^*  Aroused 
by  the  situation  in  Denmark  and  Germany,  George  H.  Yea- 
man,  our  representative  in  Denmark,  wrote  an  extensive 
article  in  1867  on  the  subject:  "Allegiance  and  Citizenship." 
This  was  sent  to  Secretary  Seward.  Yeaman  held  that  there 
were  only  three  reasons  why  a  foreign  power  might  seize  a 
man  on  his  return:  first,  unpaid  debt;  second,  crimes;  third, 
escape  from  military  service.  The  two  first  were  self-evident 
and  fair;  the  third  was  only  fair  provided  he  had  left  his 
home  country  to  escape  the  service.  If,  however  he  went 
away  to  establish  a  home  in  a  foreign  country  and  returned 
only  for  a  short  visit,  he  should  be  protected  by  the  country 
of  his  new  allegiance. 

General  Raasloff,  who  had  been  the  Danish  representative 
at  Washington  for  many  years  and  was  now  Minister  of 
War  in  Denmark,  read  Yeaman 's  article  and  agreed  with 
it  in  the  main.  He  suggested,  however,  that  the  state  de- 
partment of  each  country  should  keep  a  record  of  each  case 
of  naturalization,  and  should  notify  the  foreign  office  of  the 
country  from  which  the  subject  came  whenever  naturalization 
was  completed.  Said  Raasloff:  "He  naturalizes  in  the  United 
States;  goes  elsewhere  and  ge^s  into  trouble;  is  dealt  with 
as  an  American  but  claims  to  be  a  Dane.  The  Danish  govern- 
ment desiring  to  discharge  its  duties  of  protection  would 
yet  not  wish  to  be  imposed  upon.  It  has  no  evidence  here 
of  citizenship,^^  and  the  man  is  still  prima  facie  a  citizen."" 

General  Raasloff 's  idea  was  reported  by  Yeaman  to  Seward. 
Seward,  however,  showed  that,  while  the  plan  might  work  in 
Europe  it  would  ,be  absolutely  impracticable  in  the  United 
States  where  250,000  people  immigrated  every  year.  He  held 
it  would  not  be  long  before  the  European  countries  would 
have  to  recognize  the  principle  of  expatriation.  A  man  had 
**a  natural  right"  to  choose  his  home  wherever  he  pleased. 
The  sooner  the  European  states  accepted  that  theory  the 
better  it  would  be  for  everybody  concerned.^' 

22  House  Executive  Documents,  40  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  pp.  663-678. 

23  He  most  likely  means  naturaliiation. 
**  Ibid.,  p.  683. 

28  Tbid.,  p.  685. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       103 

During  the  late  sixties  the  question  of  allegiance,  natural- 
ization, and  expatriation  took  a  prominent  place  in  politics. 
The  Fenian  movement  had  done  its  share  to  bring  it  before 
the  people.  In  1868  many  of  the  state  party  platforms, 
and  both  of  the  chief  national  party  platforms  contained  planks 
on  the  subject.^^ 

This  may  serve  as  the  background  for  the  treaty  between 
Denmark  and  the  United  States  which  was  concluded  on  July 
20,  1872.  This  treaty,  which  was  only  one  out  of  many  ne- 
gotiated by  the  United  States  with  other  countries  about  the 
same  time,  covered  the  whole  field  of  naturalization,  re- 
admission  to  former  status,  and  renunciation  of  acquired 
status  of  citizens.  It  was  negotiated  by  Michael  J.  Cramer, 
our  representative  at  Copenhagen,  and  Baron  0.  D.  Rosenohrn- 
Lehn,  the  Danish  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs.^^ 

5.     The  First  Attempt  to  Purchase  the  Danish  West  Indies. 

The  three  islands  known  as  the  Danish  West  Indies  were 
discovered  by  Columbus  on  his  second  voyage  in  1493.  They 
form  the  most  important  part  of  the  group  now  known  as  the 
Virgin  Islands,  and  have  a  total  area  of  138  square  miles. 
The  inhabitants  are  largely  negroes  and  mulattoes,  but  some 
whites  live  in  the  islands,  having  migrated  from  Denmark, 
England  and  the  United  States.  Although  the  islands  be- 
longed to  Denmark  for  a  long  time,  yet  the  language  of  the 
inhabitants  is  English.  During  the  Danish  possession,  however, 
the  official  language  was  Danish.  It  has  already  been  shown 
that  most  of  the  trade  of  the  islands  was  carried  on  wifh 
the  United  States.  From  the  commercial  standpoint,  there- 
fore, it  was  not  necessary  to  buy  them,  as  Denmark  would 
not  allow  any  other  foreign  nation  to  trade  there.     Most  of 


26  Appleton's  Annual  Cyclopedia,  1868,  pp.  545,  548-550,  745,  748. 

27  For  the  text  of  the  treaty,  see  "W.  M.  Malloy,  Treaties,  etc.,  Vol.  I,  pp. 
384-386.  For  treaties  with  other  countries  on  the  same  subject,  see 
Ibid.,  pp.  434,  533,  691,  1132,  1758.  Although  Art.  I  of  the  treaty  of 
1872  expressly  declared  that  United  States  citizens  naturalized  in  Den- 
mark should  by  that  act  be  recognized  by  our  government  as  citizens 
of  Denmark,  yet  Denmark  continued  to  refuse  to  naturalize  any  Ameri- 
can citizen  until  a  certificate  of  expatriation  was  received  from  the 
foreign  office  at  Washington.  For  this  subject,  see  Foreign  Belaiions 
of  the  United  States,  1888,  Pt.  I,  pp.  488-489. 


104       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

the  trade  with  the  islands  was  carried  on  through  the  harbor 
of  St.  Thomas,  the  largest  of  the  group.  Its  harbor  at  Char- 
lotte Amalie  is  one  of  the  finest  in  the  world.^* 

As  the  Civil  War  had  demonstrated  the  value  of  this  har- 
bor, the  administration  became  anxious  to  secure  it.  In 
January,  1865,  when  the  various  foreign  representatives  made 
their  New  Year's  call  at  the  Executive  Mansion,  President 
Lincoln  paid  special  attention  to  General  Raasloff,  the  Dan- 
ish Minister.  This  gentleman  was  especially  well  liked  at 
Washington  because  of  his  outspoken  sympathy  with  the  Union 
eause.^®  On  January  7,  1865,  a  dinner  party  was  held  at 
the  residence  of  M.  de  Geoffroy,  charge  d'affaires  of  France. 
It  happened  that  William  H.  Seward  and  General  Raasloff 
arrived  about  half  an  hour  early  and  found  themselves  in  a 
drawing-room  almost  alone.  The  Secretary  of  State  seized  the 
opportunity  and  broached  the  subject  of  purchasing  the 
Danish  islands.  The  General  was  personally  unfavorable  to 
such  action  and  declared  that  the  islanders  were  content  under 
their  present  sovereignty.  He  promised,  however,  to  report 
the  matter  to  his  government.^"  On  April  12,  he  reported  to 
Seward  that  he  had  heard  from  Copenhagen  in  regard  to  the 
subject  of  the  Danish  West  Indies  and  it  was  his  duty  to 
inform  the  American  government  that  Denmark  did  not  care 
"much"  to  sell  the  islands.^^ 

The  assassination  of  President  Lincoln  and  the  attempt  on 
Seward's  life  delayed  further  consideration  of  the  subject  for 
some  time.  On  December  29,  1865,  General  Raasloff  informed 
Seward  that  Denmark  was  now  more  favorable  toward  the 
subject  of  selling  the  islands  and  he  was  instructed  to  find  out 
what  the  United  States  would  be  willing  to  pay  for  them. 
The  financial  embarrassment  in  which  Denmark  found  herself 
after  the  Prussian  attack  and  the  loss  of  the  duchies  in  1864 
tempted  her  to  sell  her  West  India  possessions.^^ 

28  Congressional  Record,  64  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Vol.  LIV,  Pt.  IV,  pp.  3647- 
3651. 

29  James  Parton,  The  Danish  Islands,  p.  7. 

80  Ibid. 

81  Ibid.,  p.  10. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       105 

Seward  was  somewhat  taken,  with  surprise  and  was  unable 
to  say  just  how  much  the  United  States  would  pay  for  the 
islands;  but  after  a  cruise  to  the  West  Indies  in  the  spring 
of  1866  during  which  time  he  visited  and  inspected  the  islands, 
he  made  an  offer  of  $5,000,000  to  General  Raasloff.  This  offer 
was  made  on  July  17,  1866.  Denmark  refused  and  informed 
our  government  that  it  might  not  even  be  possible  to  sell  one 
of  the  islands,  St.  Croix,  as  France  might  object  on  the 
ground  that  the  treaty  by  which  she  ceded  the  island  to  Den- 
mark in  1733  had  stipulated  that  Denmark  should  not  sell 
it  to  another  country.  Thus  the  matter  was  undecided  till 
January,  1867,  when  Seward  pressed  the  matter,  through  our 
representative  in  Copenhagen,  for  a  final  conclusion.  Finally, 
in  May  of  that  year.  Count  Frijs,  the  Danish  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs,  made  a  counter-proposition  in  which  he  offered 
the  three  islands,  St.  Thomas,  St.  John,  and  St.  Croix,  to  the 
United  States  for  $15,000,000.  This  offer,  however,  was  subject 
to  ratification  by  the  Danish  Rigsdag  and  to  the  consent  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  islands  expressed  by  a  plebiscite. 

Seward  answered  by  offering  $7,500,000,  but  he  objected  to 
the  plebiscite,  stating  that  it  was  unnecessary.  If  any  of  the 
inhabitants  were  dissatisfied  they  would  be  given  the  oppor- 
tunity to  leave  the  islands  within  two  years.  This  offer  was 
refused;  and  Denmark  made  a  new  offer  of  $11,250,000  or 
20,000,000  Danish  rixdollars  for  the  three  islands,  or  $7,500,000 
for  St.  Thomas  and  St.  John.  Denmark  would  thus  re- 
tain the  largest  and  most  valuable  of  the  islands  from  the 
standpoint  of  production,  but  the  United  States  would  get 
St.  Thomas,  the  most  valuable  from  the  standpoint  of  naviga- 
tion. Whichever  of  the  two  offers  the  United  States  should 
accept,  the  Danish  government  would  insist  on  a  plebiscite  and 
no  treaty  would  be  accepted  if  this  condition  were  not  in- 
cluded. For  some  time  the  question  hung  fire.  In  the  latter 
part  of  the  summer  of  1867  Senator  Doolittle  was  sent  to 
Copenhagen  to  aid  Yeaman  in  the  negotiations.  Admiral  Farra- 
gut  made  a  visit  to  Copenhagen  for  the  same  purpose,  but 
to  no  avail.  Denmark  continued  to  insist  on  the  plebiscite. 
Finally,  the  United  States  gave  in,  and  a  treaty  was  concluded 
on   October  24,   1867,   by   Count  Frijs  and  Yeaman,   by  the 


106       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

terms  of  which  the  United  States  were  to  secure  the  two  islands 
for  $7,500,000.»» 

The  day  after  the  treaty  was  concluded,  the  Danish  king 
caused  a  royal  proclamation  to  be  made  to  the  inhabitants  of 
the  two  islands.  In  this  he  stated  that  the  treaty  had  been 
made  subject  to  their  ratification.  He  therefore  hoped  that 
they  would  show  their  wishes  in  regard  to  the  cession  by  a 
free  and  extensive  vote.  He  concluded  by  saying:  "With 
sincere  sorrow  do  we  look  forward  to  the  severing  of  those 
ties  which  for  many  years  have  united  You  to  Us,  and  never 
forgetting  those  many  demonstration  of  loyalty  and  affection 
We  have  received  from  you,  We  trust  that  nothing  has  been 
neglected  on  our  side  to  secure  the  future  welfare  of  Our 
beloved  and  faithful  Subjects,  and  that  a  mighty  impulse, 
both  moral  and  material,  will  be  given  to  the  happy  develop- 
ment of  the  Islands  under  the  new  Sovereignty."^* 

Denmark  sent  a  commissioner  to  the  islands  to  supervise 
the  election.  To  work  in  harmony  with  this  gentleman  Seward 
sent  the  Reverend  Charles  Hawley  of  Auburn,  New  York. 
Later  Admiral  Palmer  with  the  Susquehanndh  and  Commodore 
Bissel  with  the  Monongahela  were  sent  to  the  islands  to  be 
of  any  service  that  the  authorities  might  call  for.  The  Mo- 
nongahela was  placed!  at  the  disposal  of  the  authorities  for 
transportation  purposes.^®  Their  work  was  somewhat  interrup- 
ted on  November  18,  1867,  by  a  very  severe  earthquake  which 
caused  much  damage.  There  seemed  to  be  only  one  serious 
objection  to  the  transfer  in  the  eyes  of  the  islanders.  Under 
Denmark  the  St.  Thomas  harbor  had  been  a  free  port,  and  the 
St.  Thomas  merchants  feared  that  this  condition  would  be 
changed  if  the  United  States  secured  the  islands.  The  Danish 
commissioner.  Chamberlain  Carstensen,  and  the  Reverend 
Charles  Hawley  were  sent  to  Washington  to  learn  what  would 
be  the   attitude  of  our  government   on  that   point.     Seward 


83  Ibid.,  pp.  25-31;  Congressional  Becord,  64  Cong.,  2  Seas.,  Vol.  LIV, 
Pt.  VI,  p.  694. 

34  For  the  text  of  the  proclamation  translated  from  the  Danish  as  it 
appeared  in  the  St.  Thomas  Tidende,  see  De  Booy  and  Faris,  The  Virgin 
Islands,  pp.  18-19. 

«»  James  Parton,  op.  cit.,  pp.  31-33. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       107 

informed  them  that  in  case  of  transfer  the  port  would  not  be 
free.  In  spite  of  this  information,  the  sentiment  of  the 
islanders  was  overwhelmingly  in  favor  of  annexation.  On 
January  9,  1868,  the  election  was  held.  The  vote  in  St. 
Thomas  stood  1039  in  favor  and  22  against  the  transfer;  in 
St,  John  205  in  favor  and  none  against,^®  The  Danish  Rigsdag 
ratified  the  treaty  soon  after,  and  on  January  31,  1868,  it 
was  signed  by  the  king.^^ 

When  the  treaty  was  presented  to  the  United  States  Senate, 
that  body  was  in  the  midst  of  the  great  fight  of  Reconstruction, 
and  the  day  of  the  impeachment  and  trial  of  President  Johnson 
was  close  at  hand.  It  soon  became  evident  that  the  question 
of  ratification  of  the  treaty  would  be  handled  as  a  partisan 
measure.  It  was  feared  that  the  purchase  of  the  islands  would 
enhance  the  prestige  of  the  administration,  hence  the  work  of 
ratification  was  purposely  delayed.  As  the  day  drew  near  for 
the  expiration  of  the  time  limit  stipulated  in  the  treaty  for 
ratification,  Seward  negotiated  a  supplementary  treaty  extend- 
ing the  time  limit.^*  Action  being  delayed  again,  the  time  was 
extended  to  April  14,  1870,  Through  the  influence  of  Charles 
Sumner,  who  was  chairman  of  the  committee  on  foreign  rela- 
tions, the  treaty  was  kept  in  committee  until  March  24,  1870. 
At  that  time  it  was  reported  adversely  and  the  Senate  sus- 
tained the  report.^* 

When  the  Danish  government  was  notified  of  the  action  of 
the  Senate,  King  Christian  IX  promulgated  another  royal 
proclamation  to  the  people  of  the  islands.  He  explained  that 
the  heavy  debt  caused  by  the  disastrous  war  a  few  years 
earlier  had  been  the  cause  of  Denmark's  decision  to  sell  the 
islands.  The  action  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  Senate 
spared  both  the  home  country  and  the  colonies  the  pain  of 
separation.  He  hoped  that  by  united  efforts  the  interests  of 
the  islands  might  be  promoted.^" 

86  Ibid.,  pp.  34-39, 

87  Congressional  Becord,  64  Cong,,  2  Sess.,  Vol,  LIV,  Pt.  VI,  p,  694. 
38  J.  D,  Richardson,  op.  dt.,  Vol,  VI,  pp,  688,  693. 

36  Congressional  Becord,  64  Cong.,  2  Sess,,  Vol,  LIV,  Pt.  IV,  p.  3648. 
*o  De  Boy  and  Fairs,  op.  oit.,  pp.  20-22. 


108       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

It  is  hardly  possible  to  believe  that  the  sale  of  the  islands 
would  have  caused  any  tears  either  in  Denmark  or  the  West 
Indies.  The  plebiscite  of  January  9,  1868,  abundantly  sub- 
stantiates this  view  so  far  as  the  islanders  are  concerned.  The 
Danish  West  Indies  were  not  colonized  from  Denmark,  conse- 
quently the  ties  of  consanguinity,  which  tied  England  to  her 
colonies,  were  found  not  to  exist  among  the  Danish  people. 

When  George  H.  Yeaman  on  February  1,  1868  telegraphed 
to  Washington  that  the  treaty  had  been  ratified  by  the  Rigsdag 
and  signed  by  the  King,  he  added  in  cipher,  "Several  Euro- 
pean powers  hope  it  will  fail  in  Congress.""  These  powers — 
England  was  one  of  them — had  their  wish  granted  by  the 
action  of  our  Senate. 

The  Senators  who  took  part  in  the  action  did  not  admit  that 
domestic  politics  was  the  cause  of  the  defeat  of  the  treaty. 
In  personal  letters  from  Senators  Cameron  of  Pennsylvania, 
Patterson  of  New  Hampshire  and  Harlan  of  Iowa  to  Edward 
L.  Pierce  in  1889,  it  was  brought  out  that  the  reason  the 
Senate  defeated  the  treaty  was  because  the  committee  on 
foreign  relations  felt  the  price  was  too  high.  These  gentlemen 
were  members  of  this  committee.  It  was  also  contended  that 
Denmark  was  not  mistreated  because  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives had  given  warning  in  November,  1867,  that  it  would 
not  support  the  purchase  of  any  more  territory.*^ 

It  will  not  be  amiss  to  state  the  attitude  of  the  Danish 
people  on  the  subject.  On  April  24,  1869,  an  article  appeared 
in  Daghladet,  a  Copenhagen  newspaper,  which  stated  that  Den- 
mark was  well  aware  that  the  United  States  Senate  had  the 
right  to  reject  the  treaty.  As  a  country  with  a  constitutional 
government  she  had  given  the  same  power  to  her  Rigsdag,  and 
she  was  as  anxious  as  any  nation  to  see  that  such  a  right 
was  maintained.  But  it  was  an  unfair  and  a  very  unfriendly 
act  for  the  Senate  to  exercise  that  right  in  the  form  of  a 
delay.     The   United   States   had   taken   the   initiative   in   the 


*i  James  Parton,  op.  cit.,  p.  42. 

*2  Edward  L.  Pierce,  A  Diplomatic  Fiasco.  This  is  a  pamphlet  of  18 
pages  published  in  1889.  It  argues  against  the  purchase.  For  the 
House  Resolution  of  November  25,  1867,  see  Congressional  Globe,  Appen- 
dix, 40  Cong.,  1  Sess,  pp.  792-793. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       109 

purchase  of  the  islands.  If  the  Senate  did  not  agree  with  the 
administration  it  was  its  duty  to  be  frank  about  it  and  not 
keep  the  Danish  government  and  more  especially  the  people 
in  the  islands  in  suspense.  The  word  "No"  was  honorable 
and  justifiable  but  it  was  not  courteous  to  let  the  matter  go 
by  default.  Such  action  did  not  show  "international  good 
breeding. '  '*^ 

The  islanders  were  very  much  disappointed.  As  we  shall 
see  later,  they  showed  their  dissatisfaction  from  time  to  time 
until  the  purchase  by  the  United  States  was  finally  consum- 
ated.** 


*3  "The  St.  Thomas  Treaty,"  Editorial  in  Daghladet,  Copenhagen,  April 
24,  1869.  The  article  in  translation  is  found  in  the  Library  of  Congress. 
**  A  few  minor  events  took  place  during  the  sixties  which  were  not 
connected  with  the  Civil  War.  In  1861  a  consular  convention  of  two 
articles  was  added  to  the  treaty  of  1826.  See  W.  M.  Malloy,  Treaties, 
etc.,  Vol.  I,  p.  383.  In  1864  the  Missionary  Society  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  sought  aid  from  the  State  Department  to  secure  per- 
mission to  operate  in  Denmark.  This  was  granted  by  the  Danish 
government.  Foreign  Belations  of  the  United  States,  1864-1865,  Pt.  IV, 
p.  344;  Ibid.,  1865-1866,  Pt.  m,  pp.  180-181.  After  the  assassination  of 
President  Lincoln  letters  of  condolence  were  received  by  our  government 
from  the  Danish  foreign  office  and  from  the  Governor  of  the  Danish 
West  Indies.  Foreign  Belations  of  the  United  States,  Appendix,  1865, 
pp.  43-45. 


CHAPTER  VI 

MISCELLANEOUS  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  LATTER  PART 
OF  THE  NINETEENTH  CENTURY,  1868-1900 

During  the  period  between  1870  and  the  end  on  the  nine- 
teenth century,  a  number  of  events  took  place  which  bulked 
large  in  the  diplomatic  relations  between  the  United  States 
and  Denmark.  They  are  too  varied  in  their  nature  to  be 
followed  in  their  chronological  order.  Each  problem  will 
therefore  be  treated  separately. 

1.    Danish  Exportation  of  Criminals. 

Early  in  1868  our  government  was  informed  by  Consul 
George  P.  Hansen  at  Elsinore  that  it  was  the  practice  of  the 
Danish  authorities  to  send  convicts  to  the  United  States.  Re- 
cently Ole  Sorenson,  a  notorious  criminal,  had  been  promised 
his  freedom  if  he  would  leave  the  country.  The  man  was  a 
vagrant,  a  thief,  and  under  suspicion  for  murder.  The  consul 
learned  through  the  newspapers  that  the  police  at  Copen- 
hagen had  sent  him  to  the  United  States,  as  they  thought  it 
was  cheaper  to  ship  him  out  of  the  country  than  to  keep  him. 
Upon  communicating  with  V.  C.  Crone,  the  director  of  police 
at  Copenhagen,  he  had  received  no  reply.  He  had,  however, 
succeeded  in  getting  a  lithograph  of  the  criminal  and  had  sent 
it  to  the  chief  of  police  in  New  York  and  had  told  him  to 
be  on  the  lookout  for  the  man.^ 

When  this  information  reached  the  United  States  govern- 
ment. Secretary  Seward  immediately  instructed  George  H. 
Yeaman  to  remonstrate  with  the  Danish  government  against 
the  practice.'^  President  Andrew  Johnson  sent  a  message  to 
Congress  stating  the  facts  and  recommending  that  a  law  be 


1  Senate  Documents,  40  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Vol.  II,  Doc.  71,  pp.  1-2.  Our 
gOTemment  was  informed  of  a  similar  practice  going  on  very  extensively 
in  the  provinces  of  Westphalia  and  Bavaria  in  Germany.  Foreign  Bela- 
tions  of  the   United  States,   1868-1869,   Pt.   II,  pp.  42-43. 

2  Senate  Documents,  40  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Vol.  II,  Doc.  71,  p.  3. 

110 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       111 

passed  "making  it  a  penal  offense  to  bring  such  persons  to 
the  United  States."^  That  body,  however,  true  to  its  policy 
of  '^opposition  to  the  administration  must  have  preferred  to 
have  the  criminals  come  than  to  humor  the  president.  No 
law  was  passed  on  the  subject  tiU.  the  year  1875."* 

In  1874  another  case  arose.  In  the  spring  of  that  year 
the  Secretary  of  State,  Hamilton  Fish,  wrote  to  the  American 
representative  in  Copenhagen,  Michael  J  .Cramer,  that  the 
S.  S.  Washington  had  recently  brought  six  convicts  from 
Denmark.  Each  had  a  draft  for  $7.60  drawn  on  the  Amer- 
ican Emigrant  Co.  All  but  one  would  be  prevented  from 
landing  and  would  be  returned  to  Copenhagen.  He  in- 
structed Cramer  to  make  a  rigid  inquiry  into  the  case.  He 
declared  that  the  United  States  would  consider  it  as  an  "un- 
friendly act"  if  the  King's  government  should  participate 
in  the  practice  of  sending  criminals  to  America.  Although 
the  Danish  representative  at  Washington,  J.  Hegerman  Lin- 
dencrone,  had  excused  the  government  of  Denmark  on  the 
plea  that  the  men  had  served  out  their  terms  and  were 
therefore  like  other  immigrants,  it  should  be  made  plain  to 
Denmark  that  we  were  unwilling  to  have  such  people  come 
here.'' 

Henry  B.  Ryder,  our  charge  d'affaires,  ad  interim,  reported 
another  case  in  1882.  In  a  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  State, 
F.  F.  Frelinghuysen,  he  stated  that  a  certain  Mads  Jensen, 
alias  Jorgensen,  a  criminal  from  Oldrup,  Jutland,  was  about 
to  be  sent  to  the  United  States  by  the  police  at  Copenhagen. 
As  there  was  no  time  to  work  through  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs,  he  had  written  a  letter  to  the  chief  of  police 
at  Copenhagen,  which  had  prevented  the  criminal  from  leav- 
ing for  America.  Later  he  had  presented  the  matter  to  the 
foreign  office,  as  a  result  of  which  this  individual  case 
was   ended. 

The  minister,   however,   had   asked   him   for   an   interpreta- 


8  J.  D.  Richardson,  op.  cit.,  "Vol.  VI,  p.  637. 

4  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  XVIII,  Pt.  Ill,  p.  477. 

5  Foreign  Belations  of  the  United  States,  1874-1875,  pp.  368-369. 


112       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

tion  of  Section  5  of  the  Act  of  Congress  of  March  3,  1875.* 
He  had  replied  that  it  was  not  within  his  province  to  interpret 
or  construe  acts  of  Congress  as  that  power  belonged  to  the 
courts.  In  the  event  of  a  Danish  convict  migrating  to  the 
United  States,  the  courts  would  interpret  it  in  each  particular 
case.  However,  the  United  States  would  appreciate  very 
much  if  the  Danish  government  would  prevent  convicts  from 
immigrating  to  America  even  if  they  had  served  out  their 
term.^  John  Davis,  the  acting  Secretary  of  State,  ans- 
wered Ryder's  communication  and  praised  him  for  his  dis- 
cretion in  the  Jensen  case.  He  further  stated  that  it  was 
the  duty  of  every  representative  abroad  to  prevent  such  per- 
sons, as  well  as  paupers,  from  entering  the  United  States, 
and  that  the  government  would  deprecate  very  much  to  learn 
that  any  government  would  aid  an  undesirable  class  of  its 
population  to  migrate  to  America.^ 

Another  convict  case  arose  in  1887.  Acting  Secretary  of 
State,  James  D,  Porter,  wrote  in  September  of  that  year  to 
Rasmus  B.  Anderson,  United  States  Minister  Resident  at 
Copenhagen,  that  Denmark  was  still  sending  ex-convicts  to 
the  United  States  as  soon  as  they  had  served  their  term.  He 
was  informed  that  they  were  aided  financially  by  the  Danish 
government  in  various  ways.  Minister  Anderson  was  in- 
structed to  get  all  the  information  he  could  on  the  subject." 

A  month  later  Anderson  replied  that  the  information  ob- 


«  The  immigration  act  of   March  3,   1875.     "Sec.  5.     That  it  shall  be 
unlawful  for  aliens  of  the  following  classes  to  immigrate  into  the  United 
States,   namely,   persons   who   are   undergoing   a  sentence    for   conviction 
in  their  own  country  of  felonous  crimes  other  than  political  or  growing 
out  of  or  the  result  of  such  political  offenses,  or  whose  sentence  has  been 
remitted  on  condition  of  their  emigration,  and  women  'imported  for  the 
purpose  of  prostitution.'    .    .   .   And   for  all   violations   of  this   act,   the 
vessel,  by  the  acts,  omissions,  or  connivance  of  the  owners,  masters,  or 
other   custodian,    or   the   consignees    of    which   the    same   are   committed, 
shall  be  liable  to  forfeiture,  and  may  be  proceeded  against  as  in  cases 
of  frauds  against  the  revenue  laws,   for  which   forfeiture   is  prescribed 
by  existing  law."     Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  XVm,  Pt.  m,  p.  477. 
»  Foreign  Belations  of  the  United  States,  188S,  p.  251. 
8  Tbid.,  p.  252. 
»  Ihid.,  1888,  Pt.  I,  p.  473. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       113 

tained  by  the  foreign  office  at  Washington  had  probably  come 
as  the  result  of  an  article  which  appeared  in  the  Danish 
paper  Morgenhladet.  From  this  it  appeared  that  two  notorious 
swindlers  had  been  released  from  prison  on  the  condition  that 
they  go  to  the  United  States.  So  far  as  Anderson  was  able 
to  learn  the  following  were  the  facts  in  the  case.  Two  men, 
Salomansen  and  Riemenschneider,  were  engaged  in  the  bus- 
iness of  book  publishing.  Being  hard  pressed  for  cash, 
Riemenschneider,  who  was  an  expert  engraver,  had  made 
several  Danish  1000  kroner  notes.  The  fraud  was  detected 
and  both  men  convicted  of  counterfeiting  and  sentenced  to 
serve  a  term  in  the  penitentiary.  Some  time  before  the  ex- 
piration of  their  terms  both  had  been  offered  their  freedom 
on  the  condition  that  they  leave  the  country  forever.  Saloman- 
sen declined  the  offer,  and  was  still  serving  his  term,  while 
Riemenschneider  accepted  and  went  to  the  United  States.  It 
was  impossible  to  tell  which  way  he  had  gone.  Some  rumors 
had  it  that  he  had  been  sent  by  one  of  the  Thingvalla  steam- 
ers while  others  claimed  that  he  had  left  by  way  of  Hamburg 
or  England.  At  any  rate  it  was  quite  certain  that  he  had 
gone  to  the  United  States,  probably  under  an  assumed  name. 

Anderson  also  stated  that  during  the  previous  winter  he 
had  heard  of  paupers  being  shipped  out  of  the  country.  Some 
of  the  poor-house  boards  seemed  to  think  that  that  was  the 
cheapest  way  to  get  rid  of  some  of  their  paupers.  He  added 
that  it  was  the  custom  in  many  European  countries  to  par- 
don convicts  on  the  condition  that  they  leave  the  country, 
but  it  was  left  to  the  convict  where  he  would  go.  Although 
this  was  a  reprehensible  practice,  it  seemed  that,  if  the  gov- 
ernments would  not  desist,  the  United  States  would  have  to 
be  more  rigid  in  her  immigrant  inspection.^" 

There  can  be  no  question  but  that  Anderson  was  right  in 
charging  that  other  European  governments  aided  their  con- 
victs to  go  to  the  United  States.  We  have  already  seen  that 
this  was  so  in  Germany.  The  same  thing  was  true  in  re- 
gard to   France.^  ^    and   it   is   clear   from   the   correspondence 

10  Jhid,  pp.  476-477. 

n  Ibid.,  1887,  p.  '650 -,1888,  Pt.  I,  pp.  506-507. 


114       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

between  Secretary  of  State  T.  F.  Bayard  and  Rufus  Magee, 
our  representative  at  Stockholm  in  1886,  that  the  same  prac- 
tice existed  in  the  kingdoms  of  Sweden  and  Norway."  The 
assistance  was  given,  as  shown  by  the  German,  Danish  and 
Swedish  correspondence,  by  organizations  formed  for  that 
purpose.  While  the  central  governments  in  these  countries 
were  declaring  that  they  were  not  aware  of  the  practice  and 
were  anxious  to  assist  in  preventing  it,  yet  it  seems  clear 
that  the  work  of  those  organizations,  as  well  as  the  action  of 
poor-house  boards  and  prison  officials,  could  not  have  gone 
on  without  the  knowledge  of  the  higher  government  officials. 
France  was  more  honest  than  the  rest.  She  acknowl- 
edged that  the  practice  had  been  carried  on,  and  when  the 
United  States  remonstrated  with  her,  she  gave  orders  to  stop 
it." 

2.     The  Problem  of  Extradition. 

While  the  United  States  insisted  that  she  did  not  want 
Danish  convicts,  nor  those  of  any  other  foreign  nation,  she 
also  insisted  on  taking  care  of  her  own  criminals.  In  1878 
Secretary  of  State  Evarts  wrote  to  M.  J.  Cramer  at  Copen- 
hagen that  we  had  extradition  treaties  with  all  the  European 
nations  eixcept  five,  and  that  Denmark  was  one  of  these. 
Her  peculiar  location  with  her  excellent  shipping  facilities 
made  it  especially  desirable  that  treaty  relations  should  exist 
on  that  subject,  as  she  might  otherwise  become  a  rendezvous 
for  American  criminals.  Cramer  was  instructed  to  sound  the 
Danish  government  on  the  subject  and  to  find  out  her  at- 
titude in  regard  to  the  matter.  He  enclosed  copies  of  two 
treaties  recently  made  with  other  governments,  which  might 
be  used  as  models.  If  Cramer  should  find  that  Denmark's 
attitude  was  favorable,  the  necessary  power  and  instructions 
would  be  sent  to  him  for  negotiating  the  treaty.^"* 

Upon  inquiry  the  Danish  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  was 
found  to  be  favorably  inclined  towards  the  proposal.  He 
stated  that  he  had  an  "o  priori  willingness.^'     Having  been 

"  Ibid.,  1886,  pp.  840-844. 

"  Ibid.,  1888,  Pt.   I,   pp.   506-507. 

"  Tbid.,  1879,  p.  306. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLO^IACY,  1776-1920       115 

given  the  two  models  the  minister  took  up  the  matter  with 
the  other  members  of  the  cabinet.  He  later  reportd  to 
Cramer  that  Denmark  would  be  willing  to  make  a  treaty 
with  the  United  States  on  the  subject  of  extradition  but  it 
would  have  to  differ  from  the  models  in  three  respects: 

"First.  An  increase  in  the  list  of  crimes,  especially  under 
the  head  of  forgery,  but  without  specifying  any  particular 
crimes; 

"Second.  To  have  criminals  provisionally  arrested  by 
telegraphic  orders  to  the  consuls  at  the  ports  where  such 
fugitives  may  be  supposed  to  land;  and 

"Third.  The  curtailment  of  expense  connected  with  the 
arrest  and  delivery  of  fugitives." 

Our  government  suggested  to  Cramer  that  he  work  out  a 
treaty  following  the  models  of  Denmark's  treaty  with  Great 
Britain  and  our  treaty  with  Spain  of  1877  on  the  same  sub- 
ject." When  he  and  the  Danish  officials  had  come  to  an 
agreement,  he  would  be  given  power  to  sign  it.^®  The  two 
parties,  however,  were  unable  to  agree  on  the  terms.  The 
President  reported  to  Congress  in  1880,  "The  attempt  to 
negotiate  a  treaty  of  extradition  with  Denmark  failed  on  ac- 
count of  the  objection  of  the  Danish  Government  to  the  usual 
clause  providing  that  each  nation  should  pay  the  expense  of 
the  arrest  of  the  person  whose  extradition  it  asks."^'^ 

Some  years  later  an  incident  happened  which  made  clear 
to  both  nations  the  value  of  a  treaty  of  extradition.  In  the 
fall  of  1887  two  men,  known  as  John  D.  Pomeroy  and  Wil- 
liam B.  Franks  arrived  at  Copenhagen.  Pomeroy  stated  that 
his  home  was  in  Montreal  while  Franks  claimed  Victoria, 
British  Columbia,  as  his  place  of  residence.  They  made 
people  believe  that  they  were  cattle  buyers  who  had  come  to 
Denmark  for  pleasure.  As  the  two  men  did  not  act  like 
cattle  men,  the  police  became  suspicious.  Later  two  scrap- 
books  were  found  in  their  possession  which  contained  a  large 
number  of  clippings  relating  to  a  "Benson"  case.     This  was 


15  For  text  of  the  treaty  with  Spain,  see  W.  M.  Malloy,  Treaties,  etc.. 
Vol.  II,  p.  1665. 

16  Foreign   Belaiions  of   the    United  States,  1879,   p.  310. 

17  J,  D.  Richardson,  op.  eit.,  Vol.  VII,  p.  609 


116       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

brought  to  the  notice  of  the  American  minister,  R.  B.  Ander- 
son. Upon  further  investigation,  after  the  two  men  were  ar- 
rested, it  was  found  that  John  D.  Pomeroy  was  really  John 
A.  Benson,  a  contractor  from  California,  who  was  under  in- 
dictment for  conspiracy  and  fraud.  He  had  forged  govern- 
ment documents  to  secure  extensive  land  grants.  William  B. 
Franks  was  a  brother  of  Benson  who  had  accompanied  him 
as  a  companion.  Personally  he  was  not  a  criminal  except 
as  an  accessory  after  the  fact.  Minister  Anderson  immediately 
inquired  of  the  United  States  government  whether  Benson 
was  wanted,  stating  that  Denmark  was  willing  to  extradite 
him  even  in  the  absence  of  a  treaty.  The  answer  of  our 
government  was  in  the  affirmative,  but  to  the  message  was 
added:  "Department  assumes  that  Denmark  extradites  with- 
out treaty.  It  should  be  understood  that  under  our  system 
the  United  States  can  only  extradite  when  there  is  a  treaty."" 
Later,  when  Secretary  Bayard  sent  the  documents  needed 
for  extradition  to  Anderson,  he  stated  that  the  extradition 
was  to  be  asked  as  a  courtesy  of  the  Danish  government, 
which  on  account  of  existing  laws  we  could  not  reciprocate.^' 
As  no  indictment  existed  against  the  brother  of  Benson, 
he  was  soon  released  and  sent  to  the  United  States  on  the 
S.  S.  Thingvalla.  United  States  Marshal  J.  C.  Franks  of 
San  Francisco  was  sent  to  Denmark  to  take  John  A.  Benson 
and  all  the  papers  found  in  his  possession  into  custody.  He 
left  with  his  prisoner  by  way  of  Bremen  on  January  30,  1888, 
on  the  S.  S.  Lahn.  Before  leaving  Copenhagen  Franks  asked 
the  Danish  authorities  to  allow  a  Danish  police  officer  to  ac- 
company him  to  Bremen.  This  request  was  not  granted  as 
Denmark  feared  complications  with  Germany,  the  laws  of 
which  country  prohibited  a  foreign  nation  from  transporting 
a  prisoner  through  its  territory  without  first  obtaining  per- 
mission. An  officer,  however,  was  detailed  to  accompany 
him  to  the  German  border.  The  American  consul  Loening 
at  Bremen  was  notified  to  assist  Marshal  Franks  on  German 
soil.''" 


18  Foreign  Belations  of  the  United  States,  1888,  Pt.  I,  pp.  479-480. 

19  Ihid.,  p.  481. 

20  For  the  facts  of  the  Benson  case,  see  i^id.,  pp.  479-483. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       117 

It  is  hardly  possible  to  say  that  this  case  caused  the  two 
powers  finally  to  agree  on  the  terms  of  an  extradition  treaty. 
It  may,  however,  have  had  its  influence.  But  even  if  this  case 
had  not  come  up,  it  would  have  been  clear  to  both  powers 
that  such  a  treaty  should  exist.  During  the  early  part  of 
Roosevelt's  first  administration,  Secretary  John  Hay  suc- 
ceeded in  concluding  a  treaty  with  Constantin  Brun,  the 
Danish  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  at 
Washington.  This  was  proclaimed  in  force  on  April  17,  1902. 
It  is  very  much  like  the  treaty  with  Spain  of  1877  formerly 
mentioned.  The  rock  upon  which  treaty  negotiations  of  1879- 
1880  split  was  here  eliminated  by  including  in  Article  XI 
a  provision  to  the  effect  that  the  expenses  of  extradition 
should  be  borne  by  the  state  asking  the  extradition.  "Pro- 
vided, that  the  demanding  government  shall  not  be  com- 
pelled to  bear  any  expense  for  the  services  of  such  public 
ofiicers  ...  as  receive  a  fixed  salary;  and  Provided,  that 
the  charge  for  services  of  such  public  ofiicers  as  receive  only 
fees  or  perquisites  shall  not  exceed  their  customary  fees  for 
the  acts  or  services  performed  by  them  had  such  acts  or  ser- 
vices been  performed  in  ordinary  criminal  proceedings  under 
the  law  of  the  country  of  which  they  are  officers.  "^^ 

In  1905  a  supplement  was  made  to  this  treaty,  in  which 
it  was  provided  that,  in  case  the  fugitive  should  be  found 
in  the  island  possessions  of  the  contracting  parties,  located 
in  America,  the  extradition  papers  might  be  executed  by  the 
chief  executive  of  the  islands.  In  case  the  fugitive  should 
be  found  in  island  possessions  not  in  America,  the  applica- 
tion for  extradition  should  be  made  through  the  diplomatic 
channels.  The  list  of  crimes  for  which  extradition  might  be 
demanded  was  also  enlarged.^^ 


21  For  the  text  of  the  treaty,  see  W.  M.  Malloy,  Treaties,  etc.,  Vol.  I, 
pp.  390-394;  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  XXXII,  Pt.  II,  1906-1913.  This  is 
bi-lingual. 

22  For  the  text  of  the  supplementary  treaty,  signed  by  Elihu  Eoot  and 
Constantin  Brun,  see  W.  M.  Malloy,  Treaties,  etc..  Vol.  I,  pp.  395-396. 
For  a  bi-lingual  copy,  see  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  XXXIV,  Pt.  Ill,  pp. 
2887-2889. 


118       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

3.     The  Negotiation  of  Minor  Treaties. 

For  the  sake  of  facilitating  the  passage  of  mail  between 
the  United  States  and  Denmark  a  postal  convention  was 
negotiated  between  the  nations  in  1871.^^  When  in  1873  Den- 
mark changed  her  coinage  to  the  present  decimal  system,  a 
new  schedule  of  postal  rates  was  worked  out,  which  went 
into  effect  in  1874.^*  That  same  year  Denmark  and  the 
United  States  were  both  signatories  to  the  "General  Postal 
Union"  treaty  signed  at  Berne,  Switzerland,  on  October  9, 
1874.^'  The  following  year  a  weights  and  measures  conven- 
tion was  negotiated  by  the  United  States  with  several  nations, 
Denmark  being  one  of  these.^®  A  mutual  and  reciprocal 
agreement  for  the  exemption  of  vessels  from  readmeasure- 
ments  was  made  in  February  1886.^^  Each  nation  agreed  to 
recognize  the  tonnage  stated  in  the  certificate  of  registry  of 
vessels  entering  its  ports  under  the  flag  of  the  other  nation. 
The  purpose  of  this  arrangement  was  to  save  a  great  deal  of 
unnecessary  labor  in  measuring  each  vessel  as  it  entered,  the 
result  of  which  would  usually  be  found  to  be  the  same  as 
stated  in  the  registry. 

On  account  of  the  favorable  reputation  of  American  goods 
in  Denmark,  many  countries  sold  their  goods  to  Danish  mer- 
chants who  in  turn  resold  them  to  the  public  as  American 
goods.  This  was  reported  by  Michael  J.  Cramer  as  early 
as  J.879.  He  proposed  that  the  United  States  should  have 
conventions  with  other  nations  to  protect  American  trade- 
marks. On  the  other  hand,  the  United  States  sold  large 
quantities  of  butter  to  Denmark;  and  Danish  buttermakers 
would  "rework"  and  "repack"  this  butter  and  sell  it  to 
England.  Because  of  the  great  reputation  of  Danish  butter 
the  Danish  merchants  would  receive  twice  the  price  they  had 
paid  for  it.  This  practice  could  not  be  stopped  because 
American  trade-marks  were  not  protected  in  Denmark.^®      As 

»s  statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  XVH,  pp.  903-916. 

2*  Ibid.,  Vol.  XVin,  Pt.  ni,  p.  832. 

28  Ibid.,  Vol.  XIX,  pp.  577,  589. 

26  Ibid.,  Vol.  XX,  p.  709. 

27  W.  M.  Malloy,  Treaties,  etc.,  Vol.  I,  pp.  386-387. 

28  Foreign  Belations  of  the  United  States,  1879,  pp.  303-308. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       119 

the  Danish  buttermakers  were  the  masters  of  the  world  in 
their  trade,  our  representatives  in  Denmark  urged  the  United 
States  to  secure  Danish  buttermakers  to  teach  the  Americans 
how  to  make  better  butter.^® 

The  disregard  of  American  trade-marks  in  Denmark  finally 
brought  our  government  to  realize  that  a  treaty  should  be 
made  to  protect  our  goods.  Such  a  treaty  was  concluded  by 
Clark  E.  Carr  and  the  Danish  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs, 
Reedtz-Thott,  on  June  15,  1892.  It  provided  for  the  reciprocal 
protection  of  trade-marks  and  trade-labels.  The  conditions 
were  that  the  extent  of  time  on  these  should  be  the  same 
as  in  the  country  of  their  origin,  and  that  the  formalities  for 
filing  should  be  the  same  as  the  law  provided  for  domestic 
trade-marks.^"'  Thus  if  an  American  manufacturer  wanted  to 
protect  an  article  under  his  trade-mark,  he  would  file  the 
trade-mark  with  the  Danish  government  in  the  same  fashion 
as  a  Danish  manufacturer. 

By  an  act  of  Congress  of  March  3,  1891,  the  President 
of  the  United  States  was  authorized  to  extend  the  benefits  of 
our  copyright  laws  to  foreign  publications,  provided,  the 
nation  of  the  author  gave  substantially  the  same  protection 
to  American  publications.  As  Denmark  extended  such  priv- 
ileges to  the  productions  of  American  authors,  reciprocity  in 
copyrights  was  proclaimed  in  May,  1893,  by  President  Cleve- 
land." 

4.     Diplomacy  Concerning   Trade. 

a.  The  Interpretation  of  "the  Most  Favored  Nations" 
Clause. 

By  a  law  of  Congress  of  June  26,  1884,  Section  XIV,  a 
tonnage  duty  of  six  cents  per  ton,  not  to  exceed  thirty  cents 
per  ton  for  any  one  year,  was  levied  on  vessels  entering 
the  United  States  from  foreign  ports.  By  the  same  sec- 
tion provision  was  made  that  vessels  which  entered  our  ports 
from  Central  America,  the  West  India  Islands,  Bermuda,  New- 

2»  Ibid.,  1877,  Appendix,  pp.  33-36. 

80  Wm.  M.  Malloy,  Treaties,  etc.,  Vol.  I,  p.  389. 

81  J.  D.  Richardson,  op.  dt.,  Vol.  IX,  pp.  395,  443;  Statutes  at  Large, 
Vol.  XXVIII,  p.  1219. 


120       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

foundland,  and  a  few  other  places  should  only  pay  a  tonnage 
of  three  cents  per  ton,  not  to  exceed  fifteen  cents  for  any 
year.  By  the  most  favored  nations  clause  in  Article  1  of  the 
Danish  American  treaty  of  1826  it  was  agreed  that  neither 
nation  should  grant  any  favors  to  a  third  power  which  should 
not  immediately  become  common  to  the  other  party.^^ 

On  the  basis  of  these  facts,  P.  Lovenorn  of  the  Royal 
Danish  Legation  wrote  Secretary  Bayard  in  August,  1885, 
that  Denmark  claimed  the  right  of  having  tonnage  duties 
on  her  vessels  entering  United  States  ports  reduced  from  six 
to  three  cents. *^  After  some  delay  an  answer  was  received 
from  the  Secretary  of  State  stating  that,  since  several  other 
nations  had  made  similar  claims,  the  matter  had  been  re- 
ferred to  the  Attorney-General,  who  had  made  the  ruling  that 
the  law  was  geographical  in  its  character.  Its  benefits  might 
became  operative  on  any  vessel  of  any  nation  plying  between 
the  privileged  regions  and  the  United  States.  The  treaty  and 
the  act  of  Congress  would  not  warrant  a  reduction  of  tonnage 
dues  on  vessels  clearing  from  ports  in  Denmark  for  the 
United  States,  but  Danish  vessels  taking  part  in  the  trade  men- 
tioned in  the  Act  of  June  26,  1884,  woidd  be  benefited  by  its 
provisions.'*  As  no  further  correspondence  ensued  on  the 
subject  it  is  probable  that  the  Danish  government  acquiesced 
in  the  position  of  the  Attorney-General. 

Upon  inquiry  by  Secretary  Bayard  through  the  Amer- 
ican minister  at  Copenhagen,  R.  B.  Anderson,  in  regard  to 
the  treatment  of  American  vessels  in  the  Danish  ports,  it  was 
learned  in  a  reply  from  Baron  Rosen6rn-Lehn  in  February, 
1888,  that  United  States  vessels  were  treated  exactly  like 
Danish  vessels.  Denmark  would  even  be  willing  to  open 
the  coasting  trade  to  the  United  States  on  the  basis  of 
reciprocity,  the  trade  with  Greenland  excepted  since  all 
trade  with  this  Danish  colony  was  reserved  exclusively  to  the 
crown.*'     It  was  thus  evident  that  Denmark  was  extending 

32  For  the  Act  of  Congress  of  June  26,  1884,  see  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol. 
XXIII,  pp.  53-60,  841-843. 

33  Foreign  Belations  of  the  United  States,  1885,  pp.  362-363. 

34  Ihid.,  p.  363. 

35  Hid.,  1888,  Pt.  I,  pp.  484-485. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       121 

the  advantages  of  the  most  favored  nations  clause  to  citizens 
of  the  United  States. 

In  a  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Hawaii  of  Jan- 
uary 30,  1875,^^  it  was  arranged  that  sugar  from  the  Hawaiian 
islands  should  be  allowed  to  enter  the  United  States  free  of 
duty.  A  suit  based  on  this  clause  was  decided  in  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court  in  1887.  The  court  in  this  case,  known 
as  Bartram  vs.  Robertson,  decided  that,  since  Hawaii  ex- 
tended favors  to  the  United  States  in  the  treaty  of  1875, 
the  situation  was  in  reality  one  of  reciprocity.  The  favor  to 
Hawaii  was  thus  extended  for  a  compensation.  When  similar 
compensation  should  be  made  by  Denmark,  Danish  sugar 
from  St.  Croix  might  enter  free  of  duty.^'^ 

By  a  law  of  August  3,  1882,  Congress  levied  a  tax  of  fifty 
cents  on  each  immigrant  "who  shall  come  by  steam  or  sail 
vessel  from  a  foreign  port  within  the  United  States."  From 
the  wording  quoted  it  is  evident  that  the  tax  did  not  apply 
to  anyone  coming  across  the  border  from  Canada  or  Mexico. 
This  constituted  a  privilege  to  those  two  countries,  according 
to  the  Thingvalla  Steamship  Line.  On  the  basis  of  the  most 
favored  nations  clause  this  firm  claimed  exemption  from 
the  tax  and  brought  suit  to  recover  money  that  had  been 
paid  as  head  tax  on  passengers  on  the  S.  S.  Geyser.  The 
ease  came  up  in  the  Court  of  Claims.  In  the  opinion  de- 
livered by  Justice  Richardson  no  denial  was  made  in  regard 
to  the  claim  made  by  the  Danish  firm  that  by  the  law  a 
privilege  was  extended  to  Canada  and  Mexico.  He  claimed, 
however,  that  Denmark  could  not  obtain  redress  because  the 
act  of  1882  was  later  than  the  treaty  with  Denmark.  If  Con- 
gress saw  fit  to  enact  a  law  the  provisions  of  which  were 
contrary  to  an  existing  treaty  that  was  its  privilege  and 
the  act  must  prevail  in  the  courts  of  the  country.^* 


38  W.  M.   Malloy,   Treaties,  etc.,  Vol.  I,  pp.   915-917. 

37  Bartram  vs.  Robertson,  122  United  States,  116-121.  For  another  de- 
cision following  the  same  reasoning,  see  Whitney  vs.  Eobertaon,  124 
United  States,  190. 

38  For  the  Immigration  Act  of  1882,  see  Statutes  at  Large,  "Vol.  XXII, 
pp.  214-215;  for  the  decision,  see  Thingvalla  Line  vs.  United  States,  24 
Court  of  Claims,  255-264. 


122       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

It  seems  unfair  that,  when  a  treaty  haa  been  made  between 
two  nations,  thus  forming  a  contract,  one  of  the  nations  should 
annul  a  portion  of  the  contract  by  passing  a  municipal  law. 
The  most  favored  nations  clause  as  it  appears  in  most  of  the 
United  States  treaties  is  based  on  reciprocity.  This  is  at 
any  rate  true  of  the  treaty  of  1826  with  Denmark.  When 
Congress  passes  a  law  which  conflicts  with  the  provisions  of 
existing  treaties  she  thereby  abrogates  part  of  the  treaty.  Yet 
this  is  the  practice  that  our  government  is  following.  Says 
J.  P.  Hall  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin:  "Where  an  act 
of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  conflicts  with  a  prior 
treaty  provision,  the  courts  will  give  preference  to  the  act 
of  Congress,  for  it  is  not  for  courts  to  interfere  if  the  gov- 
ernment sees  fit  to  ignore  the  treaty  into  which  it  has 
entered."^®  This  is  in  agreement  with  other  writers  on  inter- 
national law*"  and  in  harmony  with  the  action  of  the  Supreme 
Court." 

b.     The  Problem  of  American  Pork  and  Meat. 

As  early  as  1883  the  German  empire  tried  to  persuade 
the  Danish  government  to  stop  the  importation  of  American 
pork.  Grermany  objected  to  the  Danish  American  pork  trade, 
as  it  seems,  because  a  great  part  of  the  more  than  five  million 
dollars  worth  of  pork  exported  to  Germany  was  not  the  prod- 
uct of  Danish  grain-fed,  but  of  American  corn-fed,  hogs. 
The  American  product  was  shipped  to  Denmark  where  it  was 
treated  by  experts,  repacked  and  shipped  to  Germany  as 
Danish  pork.  This  was  before  the  trade-mark  and  trade-label 
convention  had  been  concluded  between  the  United  States  and 
Denmark.  Germany  threatened  to  cut  off  all  trade  in  pork 
with  Denmark  if  she  did  not  stop  buying  the  American 
product.** 

This  anti-American  movement  was  renewed  in  1887  with 
much  vigor.  Germany  claimed  that  several  cases  of  trichinosis 
discovered  in  Hamburg  had  been  caused  by  eating  pork  im- 

«»  James  P.  Hall,  Constitutional  Law,  pp.  62-63. 

*o  Charles   H.   Butler,    The   Treaty-Making  Power  in   the    United   States, 

Vol.  I,  pp.  400-401,  note. 

*i  Bottiller  vs.  DominiEniez,  130  United  States,  238. 

*a  Foreign  BeUOions  of  the  United  States,  1883,  p.  252. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       123 

ported  from  Denmark  and  claimed  to  have  been  an  Ameri- 
can article.  This  claim,  seems,  however,  to  have  been  poorly 
founded  as  no  case  of  trichinosis  had  appeared  in  Denmark 
for  two  and  a  half  years.  Minister  Anderson  claimed  that 
the  reason  the  Germans  contracted  the  disease  was  because 
they  ate  the  pork  raw  while  the  Danes  cooked  it  thoroughly 
before  eating.*^ 

Germany  continued  to  press  the  issue  with  the  Danish 
government.  Although  the  Director  General  for  the  Danish 
foreign  office  had  stated  that  Denmark  would  not  exclude 
American  pork,  yet  Anderson  felt  she  might  have  to  do  so 
in  order  to  retain  her  excellent  German  market.**  Unfortu- 
nately at  this  time  the  "pork  plague"  (probably  the  hog 
cholera,  or  the  hoof  and  mouth  disease)  started  to  rage  in 
Denmark  and  other  European  countries.  The  Germans  were 
busy  spreading  the  report  that  the  epidemic  had  come  from 
America.  The  theory  used  "most  vigorously"  in  explaining 
how  the  disease  had  been  conveyed  to  Europe  was  to  the 
effect  that  the  wooden  containers  in  which  the  American  pork 
products  were  shipped  contained  the  germs.  Later,  when  this 
lumber  was  used  for  building  purposes,  the  European  hogs 
had  been  exposed  to  the  contagion.  However  absurd  this 
theory  may  be,  it  found  a  large  number  of  adherents.*' 

This  condition  and  the  German  influence  finally  caused 
the  Danish  Government  on  March  10,  1888,  to  issue  an  order 
prohibiting  the  importation  of  raw  hog  products  from  the 
United  States  until  further  notice.*"  This  order  remained 
in  force  till  1891  when  our  minister,  Clark  E.  Carr,  suc- 
ceeded in  getting  the  Danish  government  to  revoke  it,  by 
promising  that  a  rigid  inspection  of  all  meat  products  from 
America  would  be  carried  on.*^ 

For  some  time  following  this  arrangement  Denmark  al- 
lowed the  importation  of  meat  products  from  America.     In 


43  Ibid.,  1888,  Pt.  I,  pp.  475-476. 

«  Ibid.,  pp.  478-479. 

*5  Ibid.,  pp.  478,  480-481,  483. 

*6  Ibid.,  p.  486. 

*7  Ibid.,  1891,  pp.  487-488. 


124      IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

August,  1894,  the  Wilson-Gorman  tariif  was  passed,  which 
provided  for  a  duty  of  forty  per  cent  ad  vol.  on  sugar  imported 
into  the  United  States  and  an  additional  tariff  of 
one-eighth  and  one-tenth  of  one  per  cent  per  pound  on  sugar 
imported  from  countries  where  a  bonus  was  paid,  either  di- 
rectly or  indirectly,  for  the  exportation  of  the  article.*®  It 
seems  that  "in  the  nature  of  a  retaliation  for  the  tariff  im- 
posed on  her  sugar,"  Germany  in  November  of  that  year 
prohibited  the  importation  of  American  cattle  and  meat.  As 
has  been  shown  before,  Germany  would  be  liable  to  get  these 
products  through  Denmark,  unless  the  importation  to  that 
country  could  also  be  stopped.  Just  what  pressure  she  brought 
to  bear  on  her  small  neighbor  to  the  north  we  cannot  say, 
but  judging  from  her  earlier  action  and  the  statements  made 
later  by  our  representative  in  Denmark,  it  was  a  case  of 
threat." 

Shortly  after  Germany's  action,  the  Danish  minister  of 
the  interior  published  an  order  in  the  official  government 
newspaper,  Berlinske  Tidende,  prohibiting  the  importation  of 
live  cattle  (Kvceg)  and  fresh  meat  from  America.  The  order 
stated  that  the  reason  for  the  prohibition  was  to  avoid  the 
spread  of  the  "Texas  fever,  now  prevailing  in  America." 
When  this  matter  was  called  to  the  attention  of  the  Danish 
foreign  office,  Vedel,  the  Director-General,  acknowledged  that 
he  was  not  aware  that  such  a  condition  existed  in  America, 
but  stated  that  matters  of  that  kind  were  left  to  the  Minisfer 
of  the  Interior.  The  fact  that  Vedel  admitted  that  he  did 
not  know  of  the  existence  of  the  "Texas  fever"  in  America 
lends  further  weight  to  the  suspicion  that  the  order  was 
originally  "made  in  Germany."'** 

Our  representative  at  Copenhagen,  John  E.  Risley,  called 
the  attention  of  the  Danish  government  to  the  fact  that  the 
order  used  the  word  Kvceg,  which  in  the  Danish  language 
means  not  only  horned  cattle  but  also  hogs  and  sheep.     The 

*8  statutes  at   Large,   Vol.    XXVIII,   p.   521.  For   the   whole    act.   ibid., 

pp.  509-570. 

49  Foreign  Belations  of  the  United  States,  1894,  pp.  205-206;  ibid.,  1895, 

Pt.  I,  p.  212. 

80  Ibid. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       125 

Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Reedtz-Thott,  explained  that, 
while  it  was  true  that  the  word  Kvceg  was  used  in  the  order, 
the  Minister  of  the  Interior  had  promised  him  that  it  would 
be  interpreted  as  if  the  word  Hornkvceg  had  been  used;  thus 
the  products  of  hog  and  sheep  might  be  freely  imported,  as 
well  as  hermetically  sealed  canned  meats.  In  October,  1895, 
Risley  handed  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  a  copy  of  the 
law  of  March  2,  1895,  which  dealt  with  the  handling  and  in- 
spection of  cattle  and  meat,  as  well  as  a  copy  of  the  rules 
and  regulations  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  and  re- 
quested that  the  restrictions  be  removed  entirely.  He  pointed 
out  that  the  American  system  of  inspection  was  so  weU  or- 
ganized and  carried  into  effect  that  there  was  no  reason  for 
Denmark  to  fear  that  unfit  products  would  be  shipped  out. 
When  Reedtz-Thott  had  conferred  with  the  Minister  of  the 
Interior  on  the  subject,  he  reported  to  Risley  that,  so  long 
as  Germany  retained  her  present  attitude  on  the  subject,  it 
would  be  impossible  for  Denmark  to  revoke  the  prohibitive 
order.  At  the  end  of  the  century  the  order  was  still  in 
force.^^ 

c.     American  Aid  to  Danish  Interests  in  China. 

In  1874  J.  Hegerman-Lindencrone,  the  Danish  Minister  at 
Washington,  appealed  to  Hamilton  Fish  in  behalf  of  the 
Great  Northern  Telegraph  Company  of  Copenhagen.  This 
firm  had  obtained  permission  from  the  Chinese  government 
to  built  a  telegraph  line  from  Woosung  to  Shanghai.  The 
local  magistrates  objected  to  the  existence  of  the  line  and 
caused  considerable  trouble.  Denmark  therefore  asked  the 
United  States  to  use  her  influence  with  China  so  that  the 
work  might  be  completed. 

Secretary  Fish  promised  that  he  would  have  our  repre- 
sentative to  China  look  into  the  matter  and  make  a  report. 
Fish  also  used  the  opportunity  to  remind  the  Danish  repre- 
sentative that  in  1869  the  United  States  had  proposed  a 
telegraphic  convention  to  Denmark^^  but  had  never  received 


81  Hid.,  1895,  pp.  210-213.     For  the  law  of  March  2,  1895,  see  Statutes 
at  Large,  Vol.  XXVIII,  pp.  727-738. 

82  The   communication  is  not  published. 


126       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

a  reply.  The  Danish  government  later  replied  to  this  that 
she  had  sent  an  answer  in  May,  1870;"  but  the  communica- 
tion, it  would  seem,  failed  to  reach  the  American  govern- 
ment. 

Our  representative  to  China,  S.  Wells  Williams,  took  up 
the  matter  of  the  Danish  telegraph  line  with  the  Chinese  gov- 
ernment. It  appears  that  the  Chinese  merchants  were  anxious 
to  have  the  line  built  but  the  government  officials  of  the 
province  were  prejudiced  against  it.  They  finally  acquiesced 
and  the  line  was  completed.  Said  Williams  in  reporting  to 
the  State  Department:  "A  good  thing  is  always  its  own  best 
argument  and  vindicator."  The  Danish  government  extend- 
ed due  thanks  for  the  service  rendered."* 

d.     The  Petroleum  Test  Bill. 

As  the  result  of  a  lecture  given  before  the  Insurance  Com- 
panies' Union  at  Copenhagen,  the  Danish  ministry  of  justice 
caused  the  Polytechnic  Institute  to  make  various  experiments 
with  kerosene.  Based  on  these  experiments,  this  institution 
recommended  that  petroleum  which  gave  off  ignitible  vapors  at 
a  temperature  lower  that  23°  Celsius  under  a  barometric 
pressure  of  760  m.  m.  should  not  be  sold  to  the  public  unless 
marked  as  explosives.  The  current  standard  was  40°  Celsius 
under  the  pressure  mentioned.  This  recommendation  was  em- 
bodied in  a  bill  and  laid  before  the  Danish  Rigsdag  in  1887. 
If  the  bill  should  pass,  it  would  be  a  severe  blow  to  Amer- 
ican petroleum  and  a  move  very  favorable  to  the  Russian 
product. 

The  State  Department  instructed  R.  B.  Anderson  to  do  what 
he  could  through  diplomacy  to  prevent  "unfriendly  dis- 
crimination against  our  commerce."  On  account  of  political 
troubles  in  Denmark,  peculiar  to  her  government  at  that 
time,  the  petroleum  bill  hung  fire  for  a  long  time,  and  finally 
was  amended  in  a  way  more  favorable  to  the  United  States. 
It  failed  to  become  a  law  in  the  session  of  the  1887-1888 
Rigsdag.     From  the  fact  that  we  hear  nothing  more  about 

«»  It  does  not  appear  what  the  answer  was. 

8*  Foreign  Belations  of  the  United  States,  1874,  pp.   378-383.     For  our 

correspondence  with  China  about  this  matter,  see  ibid.,  pp.  246-249. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       127 

it  in  the  diplomatic  correspondence,  it  is  likely  that  nothing 
further  was  done  about  the  matter.^' 

e.     The  Sugar  Tariff. 

The  Wilson-Gorman  tariff  act  of  1894,  as  noted  above, 
levied  an  extra  duty  on  all  sugar  imported  from  countries 
where  bounties  were  paid  for  exportation.  Denmark  taxed 
the  manufacture  of  beet  sugar,  but  in  case  the  sugar  was 
later  exported  the  tax  was  refunded.  Because  of  this  the 
United.  States  put  her  on  the  list  with  those  which  gave 
bounties  for  exportation.  Count  F.  Reventlow,  the  Danish 
representative  at  Washington,  remonstrated  against  this  and 
explained  that  the  Danish  system  was  not  the  giving  of 
bounties  but  simply  exemption  from  a  domestic  tax.  There 
was  only  one  exception  to  this,  namely,  on  sugar  darker  than 
the  Amsterdam  standard  No.  19.  On  this  kind  of  sugar  there 
was  a  manufacturer's  tax  of  2.25  ore  per  pound.  One  hun- 
dred pounds  of  this  sugar  would  through  the  refining  pro- 
cess produce  eightly  pounds  of  granulated  sugar  {melis),  ten 
pounds  of  brown  sugar  (farin),  and.  seven  pounds  of  molasses 
(sirup),  while  three  pounds  were  lost  through  evaporation, 
in  case  these  products  were  exported,  the  government  re- 
funded 2  kroner  and  40  ore  on  the  eighty  pounds  of  melis, 
22%  ore  on  the  ten  pounds  of  farin,  and  7  6re  on  the  seven 
pounds  of  sirup,  a  total  of  2  kroner  and  69%  ore.  Deducting 
the  tax  of  2  kroner  and  25  ore,  there  would  remain  a  bounty 
of  44%  ore  for  each  one  hundred  pounds,  or  0.556  ore  each  per 
pound  of  melis.  Even  this  bounty,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  did 
not  enter  into  the  sugar  trade  between  Denmark  and  the 
United  States,  because  nearly  all  the  sugar  sold  direct 
from  Denmark  was  unrefined.  During  the  years  1889-1893, 
no  refined  sugar  had  been  exported  for  American  consump- 
tion, although  2,660  pounds  had  been  shipped  for  consump- 
tion on  board  of  the  vessels  in  which  it  was  shipped.  In  the 
Danish  West  Indies  no  bounty  system  of  any  kind  existed 
as  there  were  no  refineries  there.  Under  those  circumstances. 
Count  Reventlow  asked  in  behalf  of  the  Danish  government 


85  Ibid.,  1888,  Pt.  I,  pp.  472-475,  486,  487. 


128       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

that  Denmark  be  struck  off  the  list  of  countries  offering  ex- 
port bounties  on  sugar."® 

Secretary  of  State,  W.  Q.  Gresham,  answered  Count 
Reventlow  by  stating  that  a  bill  was  before  Congress  provid- 
ing for  the  repeal  of  the  differential  duty.  As  soon  as  more 
definite  rules  were  made  on  the  subject  he  would  communicate 
them  to  him.  Shortly  after,  Acting  Secretary,  Edwin  F. 
Uhl,  informed  Reventlow  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
had  ruled  that,  in  view  of  the  explanation  of  the  Danish 
bounty  system,  the  collectors  of  the  department  had  been 
given  orders  to  tax  only  those  sugars  from  Denmark  proper 
upon  which  bounties  were  actually  paid  when  they  were  ex- 
ported.''^ 

5.    Arbitration  of  the  Butterfield  Claims. 

The  leading  facts  connected  with  the  origin  of  this  case 
have  been  stated  in  Chapter  IV.  The  claim  for  $301,814.08, 
with  accruing  interest  till  the  date  of  payment,  was  laid 
before  the  Danish  government  in  June,  1860.  Hall,  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  registered  the  objections  of  his 
government  in  a  note  of  August  10,  1860.  He  argued  that, 
since  there  had  been  a  delay  of  nearly  six  years  in  pre- 
senting the  claims,  it  would  now  be  very  difficult  to  sub- 
stantiate the  facts  in  the  case.  He  also  called  attention  to 
the  letter  of  Hebn,  dated  October  19,  1854,  in  which  he  ap- 
proved the  action  of  Governor  H.  H.  Berg  in  requiring  a 
bond  as  guarantee  that  no  hostile  act  would  be  committed, 
and  especially  to  the  remark  in  the  same  letter  that  what- 
ever may  have  been  the  destination  of  the  vessel  at  the 
outset,  he  was  able  to  give  assurance  ''that  there  is  now 
no  hostile  intention  on  the  part  of  the  owners  or  agents  of 
these  vessels  towards  any  government  or  nation  whatever.'"* 
This  remark  by  Hebn  recognized  Governor  Berg's  motive  as 
fair,  which  was  to  discharge  his  duty  and  prevent  a  hostile 

B«  Foreign  Selations  of  the  United  States,  1895,  Pt.  I,  pp.  205-206. 

67  Ibid.,  pp.  206-207.     For  the  Wilson-Gorman    Tariff  Act,  see   Statutes 

at  Large,  Vol.  XXVIII,  pp.  509-570.     For  the  tariff  on  sugar,  Schedule 

E,  p.  521. 

*«  For  the  text  of  Helm's  letter,  see  Executive  Documents,  45  Cong.,  3 

Sess.,  Vol.  XVI,  Doc.  33,  pp.  21-22. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       129 

expedition  from  being  aided  in  Danish  territory  when  it  was 
directed  against  a  friendly  state.  In  regard  to  the  firing  on 
the  Benjamin  Franklin,  he  needed  only  to  say  that  the  Sec- 
retary of  State,  Wm.  L.  Marcy,  had  by  his  action  recognized 
that  the  incident  had  ''arisen  out  of  negligence  on  the  part 
of  the  captain  of  the  vessel."  Since  therefore  all  the  mea- 
sures the  Danish  government  had  taken  were  legal  and  neces- 
sary', the  government  of  the  United  States  could  not  hold 
her  responsible  for  damages. 

On  account  of  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War  the  case  was 
allowed  to  be  temporarily  forgotten.  When  the  war  was  ended, 
William  H.  Seward  in  May,  1866,  urged  the  claim  on  the 
Danish  government  and  offered  an  explanation  in  regard  to 
the  delay.  The  first  delay  had  been  occasioned  by  Pickett 
and  the  later  delay  by  Soule,  both  men  being  somewhat  slow 
in  getting  the  necessary  documents  together.  There  was,  how- 
ever, less  than  four  years  between  the  date  of  ascertaining  the 
final  amount  of  the  damages  and  the  date  the  claim  on  which 
was  put  before  the  Danish  foreign  office.^'' 

The  argument  in  favor  of  the  claims  was  presented  to  the 
American  representative  in  Denmark  through  Seward  by 
Lewis  and  Cox,  the  attorneys  for  the  claimants.  When  George 
H.  Yeaman  put  the  facts  before  the  Danish  government  he 
pointed  out  that  there  was  no  statute  of  limitation  between 
nations  as  between  individuals.  Said  Yeaman:  "It  will  not 
be  overlooked  by  His  INCajesty's  Government  that  it  once, 
after  a  lapse  of  more  than  twenty  years  from  the  commission 
of  the  acts  complained  of,  made  honorable  satisfaction  of 
claims  preferred  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in 
behalf  of  citizens  injured  by  those  acts."^°  The  fact  that 
William  L.  Marcy  had  said  nothing  more  about  the  case, 
after  he  had  presented  the  matter  to  Torben  Bille  and  re- 
ceived his  reply  in  1856,  did  not  mean  that  the  case  was 
dropped,  so  far  as  the  claims  for  damages  was  concerned,  for 
no  claims  had  been  presented  to  Bille.  In  regard  to  Helm's 
statement,    mentioned    by    Hall,    he   observed    that    it    should 

59  Ibid.,  pp.   60-65. 
80  Ibid.,  p.  67. 


130       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

not  be  construed  to  mean  that  the  United  States  recognized 
the  vessels  as  having  had  an  original  criminal  intent.  On  the 
contrary,  an  investigation  had  been  held  which  cleared  them  of 
such  suspicion.  If  Helm's  statement  was  taken  to  prove  that  the 
vessels  had  been  under  suspicion,  it  must  also  be  taken  to 
prove  that  such  suspicion  no  longer  existed.  In  international 
affairs  a  suspicion  did  not  constitute  ground  for  action.  Re- 
cently a  great  European  power  had  not  deemed  it  sufficient 
reason  to  detain  a  vessel  even  after  much  proof  had  been 
presented  that  the  vessel  was  being  built  for  a  purpose  hostile 
to  the  United  States.  As  Denmark  was  a  nation  especially 
interested  in  the  just  observance  of  international  maritime 
law,  it  was  hoped  that  she  would  not  disregard  the  justice 
of  this  claim.'* 

The  Danish  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Count  E.  Juelwind 
Frijs,  to  whom  Teaman's  letter  was  addressed,  returned  a 
vigorous  answer  four  months  later,  declaring  that  the  claim 
was  outlawed  "by  the  sole  fact  that  it  had  not  been  in- 
sisted upon  in  due  time  {qu'on  omis  de  la  faire  valoir  en 
temps  utUe).''  But  whatever  might  be  said  in  regard  to  the 
statute  of  limitation  he  affirmed  that  there  was  another  fact 
of  greater  importance:  Denmark  was  unwilling  to  recognize 
the  justice  of  the  claims.  She  had  had  a  duty  to  perform 
towards  Venezuela  as  well  as  towards  the  United  States.  The 
vessels  were  suspected  not  only  by  Venezuela  and  the  author- 
ities of  the  Danish  West  Indies,  but  also  by  the  United 
States  government,  a  fact  proved  by  the  inquiry  which  had 
been  held  before  the  Catharine  Augusta  left  New  York.  The  fact 
that  the  American  government  had  "discharged  the  seques- 
tration" was  no  reason  why  the  authorities  at  St.  Thomas 
should  hold  them  innocent,  for  each  state  was  responsible  for 
its  own  action  and  must  therefore  take  its  own  precaution. 
Referring  to  Teaman's  allusion  to  England's  attitude  toward 
the  building  of  Confederate  cruisers,  Count  Frijs  used  a 
pleasant  but  effective  wit,  when  he  observed:  "that  the  un- 
favorable reception  which  that  tolerance  of  the  Government  of 
Her  Brittanic  Majesty  has  found  in  the  Northern  States  and 

81  Ihid.,  pp.  66-71. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       131 

the  steps  taken  by  the  government  of  the  United  Sates  to 
prevent  England  from  proceeding  in  a  similar  manner  in  the 
future,  seem  to  indicate  that  the  Cabinet  at  Washington  have 
not  been  very  well  satisfied  with  the  great  liberty  allowed 
to  the  above  mentioned  ships."  In  closing  he  expressed  the 
hope  that  the  United  States  might  understand  the  unfairness 
of  the  claims  presented  and  hence  pursue  the  matter  no  fur- 
ther.'^ 

In  the  summer  of  1869  the  United  States  took  up  the  case 
again.  The  new  Secretary  of  State,  Hamilton  Fish,  com- 
municated with  the  Danish  charge  d'affaires  at  Washington, 
F.  de  Bille,  stating  that,  since  the  matter  had  been  pre- 
sented twice  to  the  Danish  government  and  each  time  re- 
jected, the  matter  had  taken  such  form  that  either  one  of 
the  nations  would  have  to  give  in  or  else  the  matter  should 
be  submitted  to  arbitration.  He  therefore  proposed  that  the 
matter  be  referred  to  the  British  or  Russian  minister  at  Wash- 
ington and  that  his  decision  should  be  deemed  binding.^^ 

De  Bille  promised  to  put  the  proposition  before  his  govern- 
ment but  it  appears  that  no  answer  was  received.  In  April 
1874,  J.  C,  B.  Davis,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  instructed 
Michael  J.  Cramer  to  put  the  matter  before  the  Danish  gov 
emment  again.®*  When  these  instructions  were  carried  out, 
the  Danish  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Rosenorn-Lehn,  stated 
that  he  was  very  sorry  that  the  United  States  had  pre- 
sented the  matter  again,  and  that  he  hoped  the  proposal  for 
arbitration  might  be  withdrawn.  Through  J.  Hegermann- 
Lindencrone,  the  Danish  representative  at  Washington,  a 
formal  request  was  made  of  the  government  for  the  with- 
drawal of  the  proposal  for  arbitration.  Four  reasons  were 
given.  First,  too  long  a  time  had  elapsed  since  the  occurrence 
of  events  which  had  given  rise  to  the  claims.  Second,  many 
of  the  men  connected  with  the  events  were  now  dead,  for 
example,  Feddersen,  Berg,  Castonier  and  others.  Those  who 
were  still  living  could  no  longer  remember  the  details.  Third, 
the  American  officials,  and  especially  Helm,  had  agreed  that 

62  Ihid.,  pp.  72-74. 

63  Ibid.,  p.  75. 

64  Ibid.,  pp.  75-76. 


132       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

the  laws  of  neutrality  should  be  guarded  to  the  satisfaction  of 
the  Danish  authorities;  and  as  soon  as  satisfactory  proof  had 
been  presented  that  the  cargo  of  the  Catharine  Augusta  had 
a  lawful  destination,  it  was  released.  Secretary  Marcy  had 
admitted  that  the  shot  fired  at  the  Benjamin  Franklin  was 
occasioned  by  the  negligence  of  the  captain.  No  disrespect 
had  been  shown  at  the  time  to  the  American  flag  because  the 
Benjamin  Franklin  was  flying  the  British  colors.  Fourth, 
every  time  the  Danish  government  in  the  past  had  presented 
the  whole  case  in  its  true  light,  it  had  been  dropped  for  a 
while;  it  was  not  fair  to  continue  to  revive  the  case.  It  was 
contended  that  as  long  as  there  was  no  true  claim  there  was 
nothing  to  arbitrate.  De  Bille  pointed  out  that  Venezuela 
was  in  the  same  situation  in  which  the  United  States  gov- 
ernment found  itself  a  few  years  later.  A  rebellion  had 
broken  out  within  her  borders  and  her  representatives  urged 
upon  the  Danish  government  at  St.  Thomas,  as  the  United 
States  did  upon  England,  not  to  give  aid  to  the  rebels.  Since 
the  United  States  government  had  successfully  demanded  dam- 
ages from  England  on  account  of  the  Alabama,  it  was  unfair 
to  hold  that  the  Danish  government  should  have  taken  the 
same  stand  towards  Venezuela  that  England  did  to  the  United 
States.^" 

Hamilton  Fish  answered  the  Danish  government  through 
Michael  J.  Cramer  in  a  memorandum  forwarded  soon  after 
the  receipt  of  Hegermann-Lindencrone 's  communication.  The 
note  which  was  brief  and  pointed  contained  the  following 
arguments  in  favor  of  the  claims.  First,  the  question  of  time 
was  not  pertinent  as  a  statute  of  limitation  did  not  obtain  be- 
tween nations.  Second,  the  periodic  presentation  of  the 
claims  was  caused  by  circumstances  and  could  therefore  not 
be  held  to  invalidate  them.  Third,  the  facts  in  the  case  were  well 
established,  so  that  it  was  of  no  consequence  that  witnesses 
could  not  be  called.  Fourth,  admissions  by  any  American 
officials  could  not  alter  the  facts  in  the  case.  Fifth,  as  a 
belligerent  could  not  capture  arms  and  ammunition  from  an 
enemy  in  a  neutral  port,  he  could  not  ask  a  neutral  to  do  it 


65  Ibid.,  pp.  80-84. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       133 

for  him.**  Cramer  sent  the  memorandum  of  Hamilton  Fish 
to  Baron  0.  D.  de  Rosenorn-  Lehn  on  August  15,  1874,*^  but 
it  does  not  appear  that  a  reply  was  ever  received  from  the 
Danish  government. 

Several  years  passed  during  which  no  mention  was  made 
of  the  Butterfield  Claims.  On  May  25,  1878,  the  House  of 
Representatives  passed  a  resolution  requesting  the  Secretary 
of  State  to  furnish  it  with  a  statement  and  the  documents 
concerning  the  claims.*®  These  were  transmitted  by  the  Pres- 
ident in  January,  1879.*®  It  does  not  appear,  however,  that 
anything  was  done  at  that  time,  and  for  nearly  a  decade  the 
case  was  forgotten. 

What  occurred  to  bring  up  the  case  again  cannot  be  re- 
lated here  as  the  documents  have  not  been  published;  but 
in  1888  the  question  of  arbitrating  the  Butterfield  claims  was 
taken  up  in  Copenhagen  by  Rasmus  B.  Anderson,  Minister 
Resident  of  the  United  States.  He  succeeded  in  getting  Den- 
mark to  agree  to  arbitration.  A  convention,  concluded  De- 
cember 6,  1888,  was  ratified  by  our  Senate  the  next  year 
in  May.  It  provided  in  its  first  article  that  the  claims  should 
be  referred  to  Sir  Edmund  Monson,  the  British  representa- 
tive at  Athens,  as  sole  arbitrator.  The  second  article  pro- 
vided that  duly  certified  copies  of  all  documents  connected 
with  the  case  should  be  furnished  by  each  government  to  the 
arbitrator  and  that  duplicates  of  the  copies  presented  to  him 
should  be  presented  to  the  other  government.  The  time  for 
filing  the  documents  with  the  arbitrator  should  be  limited 
to  seventy  days  from  the  day  the  government  received  noti- 
fication of  his  acceptance.  The  expenses,  according  to  the 
third  article,  should  be  shared  equally  by  the  two  govern- 
ments. The  fourth  article  provided  that  the  two  govern- 
ments should  abide  by  the  decision  of  the  arbitrator  and 
perform  his  decree  without  delay.  The  fifth  and  last  article 
provided  for  the  ratification  of  the  convention.^" 


66  Ibid.,  pp.  85-86. 

67  Ibid.,  p.  87. 

«8  Congressional  Eecord,  45  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Vol.  VII,  Pt.  IV,  p.  3792. 

«»  J.  D.  Richardson,  op.  cit..  Vol.  VII,  p.  510. 

70  For  text  of  the  treaty,  see  W.  M.  Malloy,  Treaties,   etc.,  Vol.  I,  pp. 

387-388. 


134       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

Sir  Edmund  Monson  accepted  the  position  as  arbitrator/* 
On  January  22,  1890,  he  rendered  his  award,  a  copy  of  which 
was  sent  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  James  6.  Blaine.  The 
arbitrator  held  that  there  were  no  substantial  difference  in 
the  representation  of  facts  by  the  two  governments.  The 
decision  would  therefore  hinge  on  the  interpretation  of  those 
facts.  Taking  up  the  contention  of  the  Danish  government 
that  a  statute  of  limitation  operated  between  nations  as  be- 
tween individuals,  the  arbitrator  held  that  the  lapse  of  time 
would  not  preclude  payment  if  the  merits  of  the  case  should 
prove  that  compensation  ought  to  be  made.  It  might,  how- 
ever, be  a  just  cause  for  criticism  by  the  Danish  government.^^ 
In  regard  to  the  question  whether  there  were  ligitimate 
grounds  for  suspecting  the  two  vessels,  he  answered  in  the 
affirmative.  It  was  therefore  the  duty  of  the  Danish  author- 
ities to  take  precautions.  As  to  whether  there  was  reason- 
able ground  to  object  to  the  measures  taken  by  the  Danish 
authorities,  he  observed  that  the  facts  in  the  case  did  not 
justify  the  terms  "seizure  and  detention"  used  in  the  Amer- 
ican argument.  The  measures  adopted  by  the  authorities  of 
St.  Thomas  consisted  in  demanding  a  "bond  of  moderate 
amount"  and  a  personal  guarantee  that,  if  the  vessel  were 
allowed  to  be  repaired  in  a  Danish  port,  neither  it,  nor  its 
cargo,  would  be  used  against  a  nation  friendly  to  Denmark. 
This  was  necessary  in  virtue  of  the  Danish  law  forbidding  the 
free  export  of  arms.  "The  ships  were  in  no  sense  seized 
nor  detained  and  the  precautionary  measures  ....  were 
cheerfully  acquiesced  in  by  the  consignees  and  the  commercial 
agent   of  the   United   States."     He   therefore   held   that   the 


71  For  the  correspondence  relative  to  the  extension  of  the  invitation  to 
Sir  Edmund  Monson  to  become  the  arbitrator  in  the  case,  see  Foreign 
delations  of  the  United  States,  1889,  pp.  152-158. 

72  It  is  interesting  to  note  here  that  Sir  Edmund  Monson  disagreed 
on  this  subject  with  Henry  Wheaton  when,  in  regard  to  the  Bergen  prize 
claims,  he  stated  that  a  certain  time  must  come  when  claims  become 
invalid  on  account  of  the  lapse  of  time,  and  that,  if  a  third  party  were 
to  arbitrate  the  case,  the  claims  would  most  likely  be  held  invalid  as 
nearly  seventy  years  had  passed  since  they  arose.  For  Henry  Wheaton 's 
argumentation,  vid.  sup.  Chapter  HI,  and  Executive  Documents,  28  Cong., 
1  Sess.,  Vol.  n,  Doc.  264. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       135 

measures  were  reasonable  and  the  United  States  had  no  cause 
for  complaint.  As  to  whether  the  measures  had  been  kept 
in  force  too  long,  he  observed  that  the  request  to  reload  the 
cargo  was  made  on  May  7,  1855,  and  the  permission  given 
shortly  afterward/^  There  is  no  evidence  that  clearance  might 
not  have  been  obtained  earlier  had  the  plaintiff  asked  for  it. 
There  is  therefore  no  ground  to  show  ''that  the  precautionary 
measures  .  .  .  were  maintained  longer  than  was  necessary." 
On  the  basis  of  these  facts  the  claims,  which  were  founded 
on  the  precautionary  measures  of  the  St.  Thomas  authorities 
taken  toward  the  Benjamin  Franklin  and  the  Catharine 
Augusta,  were  disallowed. 

The  question  of  the  firing  on  the  Benjamin  Franklin  was 
then  taken  up.  The  arbitrator  held  that  the  chartering  of 
this  vessel  by  the  British  steamship  company  did  not  in  itseK 
entitle  the  vessel  to  enjoy  the  privilege  of  the  regular  steam- 
ers of  the  company  to  enter  or  leave  at  night  without  special 
permission.  Even  steamers  under  the  Danish  flag  did  not 
enjoy  this  privilege.  "It  is  clear  that  the  captain  of  the 
Benjamin  Franklin  neglected  to  comply  with  these  formal- 
ities, and  consequently  the  Danish  Government  cannot  be 
fixed  with  the  responsibility  of  what  unfortunately  ensued." 
From  all  the  facts  in  the  case  it  was  clear  ''that  neither  in 
respect  to  the  firing  upon  the  steamship  Benjamin  Franklin, 
any  more  than  in  the  treatment  of  that  steamer  and  of  her 
consort,  the  Catherine  Augusta,  is  any  compensation  due  from 
the  Danish  government."^* 

6.     The  Mormon  Problem. 

During  the  last  seventy  years  regular  waves  of  Mormon 
missionary  propaganda  have  swept  over  Denmark.  The  first 
one  came  in  1850  when  two  "Apostles,"  Snow  and  Dykes, 
arrived  from  Utah.     Snow  made   Copenhagen   his   center  of 


73  As  stated  in  Chapter  IV  clearance  was  given  to  the  two  ships  May 
26,  1855,  after  the  proper  documents  had  been  presented  to  the  authori- 
ties. Executive  Documents,  45  Cong.,  3  Sess.,  Vol.  XVT,  Doc.  33,  pp. 
63-64. 

74  For  text  of  the  award,  see  Foreign  Belations  of  the  United  States, 
1889,  pp.  158-160.  See  also  J,  B.  Moore,  International  Arbitration,  Vol. 
II,  pp.  1185-1207. 


136       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

activity,  while  Dykes  labored  around  Aalborg  in  Jutland/' 
A  few  years  later  the  Mormons  attempted  to  establish  their 
work  on  the  island  BornholmJ^  Many  of  the  converts  emi- 
grated from  Denmark  to  Utah  because  they  could  there  prac- 
tise their  newly-embraced  doctrines  of  polygamy.  During 
the  seventies  our  foreign  office  inquired  of  the  Danish  gov- 
ernment what  was  being  done  to  prevent  migration  to  Amer- 
ica for  polygamous  purposes.  The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs 
answered  that  his  government  was  pleased  to  know  that  the 
United  States  was  interested  in  the  problem,  as  Denmark  was 
powerless  in  the  matter  since  it  was  not  against  Danish  law 
to  join  the  Mormon  church.  Furthermore  there  was  no  legal 
way  to  stop  emigration  which  had  for  its  purpose  a  future 
state  of  polygamy,  for,  according  to  Danish  law,  a  purpose 
which  had  been  given  no  expression  was  not  punishable. 
Therefore,  the  only  way  to  put  a  stop  to  Danish  Mormon 
emigration  was  to  stop  polygamy  in  Utah, — ^that  would  re- 
move the  condition  which  aided  the  propagation  of  the  Mor- 
mon faith  in  European  countries.^^ 

In  May,  1897,  John  E.  Risley  received  a  petition  from  C. 
N.  Lund,  president  of  the  Scandinavian  Mission  of  the 
Mormon  Church,  requesting  the  intervention  of  the  American 
representative  in  behalf  of  two  Mormon  missionaries,  American 
citizens,  who  had  been  expelled  from  Denmark  because  they 
preached  Mormon  doctrines.  He  claimed  that  they  had  not 
preached  polygamy  and  that  therefore  they  had  not  broken  the 
law  of  the  land.  Risley  was  uncertain  how  to  act,  hence  he 
wrote  to  Washington  for  instructions.  These  were  sent  in 
July  of  the  same  year  and  were  to  the  effect  that,  if  any 
doctrines  were  preached  which  were  contrary  to  the  laws  of 
Denmark,  the  Mormon  missionaries  could  not  expect  Amer- 
ican protection.  If,  however,  they  were  "law-abiding  and 
moral  teachers,  they  should  have  equal  treatment  with  other 
propagandists. '  '^* 


75  Hansen  og  Olsen,  De  DansTce  Baptisters  Eistorie,  pp.  74,  91. 

76  Ibid.,  p.  111. 

77  Foreign  Belations  of  the  United  States,  1880,  pp.  346-347. 

78  Ihid.,  1897,  pp.  121-124.     It  does  not  appear  from  the  correspondence 
what  Risley  did  for  the  Mormons. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       137 

In  March,  1900,  the  Mormon  question  came  up  again  be- 
cause the  Danish  government  banished  two  Mormon  mission- 
aries. They  appealed  to  Laurits  S.  Swenson,  the  American 
representative  at  Copenhagen,  for  protection.  He  succeeded 
in  getting  the  foreign  offtce  of  Denmark  to  stay  the  execu- 
tion of  the  decree  of  banishment,  which  had  been  issued  by 
the  Minister  of  Justice.  An  investigation  was  held  concerning 
the  work  of  the  two  missionaries,  which  revealed  that  they 
had  done  nothing  contrary  to  law  but  had  been  banished  for 
preaching  Mormonism  in  general.  It  was  shown  by  several 
affidavits  that  polygamy  was  no  longer  a  tenet  of  Mormonism. 
The  American  minister  therefore  asked  the  Danish  govern- 
ment to  revoke  its  decree  of  banishment.  He  received  the 
reply  that,  since  the  United  States  in  1879  and  1881  had  re- 
quested Denmark  to  prevent  the  migration  of  Mormons  to 
the  United  States  and  since  the  emigration  records  showed 
that  a  large  number  of  people  of  the  Mormon  faith  had  been 
migrating  to  Utah  to  the  detriment  of  the  Danish  state,  the 
order  could  not  be  revoked.  A  month's  stay  of  the  execution 
of  the  decree  was,  however,  granted.'^® 

Since  1900  the  Mormon  question  has  caused  very  little 
trouble  as  the  Danish  government  has  become  more  liberal  on 
the  subject.*"  Perhaps  the  fact  that  polygamy  has  disap- 
peared in  the  United  States  has  done  its  part  to  remove  the 
problem. 

7.     The  Status  of  the  American  Representative  to  Denmark. 

Denmark  has  followed  the  principle  of  keeping  the  rank 
of  her  representatives  to  foreign  countries  as  low  as  pos- 
sible. This  was  generally  done  for  economic  reasons.  It  was 
the  custom  of  the  United  States  to  give  a  representative  to 
a  foreign  country  the  same  rank  which  that  nation's  repre- 
sentative held  in  Washington.  Consequently  our  representa- 
tive at  Copenhagen  held  a  rank  very  low  compared  with  the 
size  of  the  nation  he  represented.  This  was  humilating  to 
our  representative  for  two  reasons.  Since  his  rank  in  the 
diplomatic  service  was  low,  his  salary  was  very  small.     At  a 

78  Foreign  Belations  of  the  United  States,  1900,  pp.  413-422. 
80  Ibid.,  1901,  pp.  140-141. 


138       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  TKE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

time  when  the  representatives  of  the  larger  European  na- 
tions at  Copenhagen  were  paid  $25,000  a  year,  our  repre- 
sentative received  only  $5,000.  Unless  he  was  wealthy  he 
was  unable  to  take  part  in  the  court  affairs  and  the  social 
functions  of  the  diplomatic  corps.  On  the  other  hand,  our 
representative  felt  humiliated  when  on  various  official  occa- 
sions, because  of  his  low  rank,  he  would  have  to  wait  till  the 
representatives  of  very  small  countries,  holding  high  diplo- 
matic ranks,  had  finished  their  business  at  the  foreign  office. 

During  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  our  rep- 
resentative in  Denmark  had  held  the  rank  of  charge  d'affaires. 
During  the  seventies  he  was  styled  Minister  Resident  and  his 
salary  was  $7500.*^  In  the  latter  part  of  that  decade  his  rank 
was  changed  again  to  charge  d'affaires  and  his  salary  reduced 
to  $5000.*^  In  1883  the  rank  was  again  changed  to  Minister 
Resident  and  the  office  of  Consul-General  was  added,  but 
the  salary  continued  at  $5000.*'  Thus  it  remained  for  sev- 
eral years.  On  account  of  this  condition  Rasmus  B.  Anderson 
recommended  to  the  foreign  office  that  the  rank  should  be 
raised  to  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary, 
that  the  salary  should  be  raised  to  $7500,  and  that  there  should 
be  no  secretary  at  the  legation,** 

In  spite  of  this  recommendation  nothing  had  been  done  in 
1889  when  Anderson  left  Copenhagen  and  Clark  E.  Carr 
took  his  place.  The  new  minister  found  it  even  harder  to 
get  along  on  the  small  salary  than  his  predecessor,  for  he  had 
his  family  with  him  while  Anderson  had  left  his  in  the  United 
States.*"'  In  1890  the  matter  was  brought  before  Congress  by 
Senator  John  Sherman  who  was  in  favor  of  adopting  An- 
derson's recommendations.  Consequently  the  rank  was  changed 
and  the  salary  raised  by  a  law  of  July  14,  1890,  to  $7500.*' 

<Ji  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  XVIII,  Pt.  II,  p.  67. 

82  Ibid.,  Vol.  XIX,  p.  170. 

83  Ihid.,  Vol.  XXII,  p.  128. 

8*  Senate  MiscelUmeous  Documents,  51  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  II,  Doc.  135, 

pp.  1,  2. 

85  Ibid.,  pp.   3-4. 

««  Ibid.,  pp.  5-6;   SUitutes  at  Large,  Vol.  XXVI,  p.  272;   Congressional 

Becord,  51  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  XXI,  Pt.  VIII,  p.  7264.     For  full  record 

of  the  bill  in  Congress  see  ibid.,  Index  p.  428,  House  Bill  9603. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       139 

In  1892  a  rumor  reached  Denmark,  that  the  American  le- 
gation would  be  discontinued.  Carr  informed  the  Secretary 
of  State  that  this  rumor  seriously  hampered  negotiations  with 
Denmark  in  regard  to  the  World's  Fair.*^  The  rumor,  how- 
ever, was  either  unfounded  or  the  threat  was  not  carried 
out.  By  a  law  of  February  22,  1907,  the  salary  of  our  repre- 
sentative to  Denmark  was  raised  to  $10,000,^^  at  which  figure 
it  still  remains.®® 

87  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  52  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  V,  Doe.  127. 

88  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  XXXIV,  Pt.  I,  p.  917. 

89  Ibid.,  Vol.  XL,  Pt.  I,  p.  1326.  In  1895  the  United  States  sought  and 
obtained  permission  from  the  Danish  government  for  the  Peary  Belief 
Expedition  to  land  in  Greenland.  Foreign  Belations  of  ithe  United 
States,  1895,  pp.  207-210.  The  same  year  complaints  were  made  through 
F.  Eeventlow,  the  Danish  minister  at  Washington,  that  American  cattle 
shippers  were  in  the  habit  of  securing  Danish  citizens  as  helpers  on 
board  the  cattle  boats  and  leaving  them  destitute  in  foreign  ports.  Secre- 
tary of  State  Gresham  answered  that,  although  the  practice  was  de- 
plorable, nothing  could  be  done  to  remedy  the  situation  at  present  be- 
cause of  the  lack  of  appropriate  laws  under  which  to  prosecute  the 
shippers.     Ihid.,  p.  214. 


CHAPTER  VII 

RECENT  RELATIONS  BETWEEN  THE  UNITED  STATES 
AND   DENMARK,   1900-1920 

The  events  of  the  last  twenty  years  are  so  recent  that  they 
have  scarcely  become  history.  Were  it  not  for  one  out- 
standing incident,  this  period  would  be  left  for  the  historian 
of  the  future.  That  event  is  the  purchase  by  the  United 
States  of  the  Danish  West  Indies  in  1916-1917.  Before  tak- 
ing up  this  subject,  however,  a  few  minor  matters  which  have 
occurred  during  the  twentieth  century  will  be  mentioned. 

1.  Reciprocal  Protection  of  Industrial  Designs. 

According  to  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  industrial  de- 
signs and  models  made  by  aliens  residing  in  another  country 
are  protected  by  our  government  only  when  that  country  ex- 
tends reciprocity  in  protecting  the  designs  and  models  patent- 
ed in  the  United  States.  When  the  proper  conditions  exist, 
the  President  of  the  United  States  is  empowered,  by  procla- 
mation, to  extend  protection  to  foreign  patents.^ 

In  accordance  with  this  law  the  Danish  Envoy  at  Wash- 
ington, Constantin  Brun,  notified  the  State  Department  on 
June  8,  1906,  that  under  the  law  of  April  1,  1905,  Denmark 
had  granted  protection  to  American  industrial  designs  and 
models  on  the  basis  of  reciprocity.  He  therefore  requested 
that  the  necessary  promulgation  be  made  by  the  United  States 
and  promised  that  a  corresponding  promulgation  would  be 
made  in  Denmark.^  The  promulgations  were  made  in  due 
order,  by  the  United  States  on  June  22,  1906,  and  by  Den- 
mark on  August  14,  1906." 

2.  Reciprocal  Protection  for  Trade-Marks  in  China. 


1  statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  XXXII,  Pt.  I,  pp.  1225-1227,  law  of  March  3, 
1903. 

2  W.  M.  Malloy,  Treaties,  etc..  Vol.  I,  p.  396. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  397.     For  the  Danish  promulgation  in  the  Danish  language, 
see  ibid.,  p.  398. 

140 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       141 

A  similar  arrangement  was  made  in  1904.  The  Danish 
government  acting  through  Brun  requested  the  United  States 
to  protect  Danish  trade-marks  duly  registered  in  America 
against  infringement  by  our  citizens  in  China.  Reciprocally, 
the  Danish  government  would  protect  American  trade-marks, 
duly  registered  in  Denmark,  against  infringement  by  Danish 
citizens  in  China,  by  causing  violators  to  be  brought  before 
the  Danish  consular  court  at  Shanghai  and  punished  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  provisions  of  the  laws  of  Denmark,  dated 
April  11,  1890,  and  December  19,  1898,  and  of  the  Royal 
Ordinances,  dated  September  28,  1894,  and  September  12, 
1902.  He  also  requested  that  the  arrangement  be  made  effec- 
tive by  an  exchange  of  notes. 

The  State  Department  responded  soon  after  and  expressed 
its  willingness  to  enter  into  such  an  agreement,  as  we  already 
had  similar  agreements  with  other  nations.  It  was  pointed 
out,  however,  that  we  had  no  law  making  the  infringement  of 
a  trade-mark  a  criminal  offense,  but  that  effective  provisions 
existed  by  which  damages  might  be  obtained  by  civil  action. 
The  Danish  government  accepted  this  condition  and  instruc- 
ted its  consul  at  Shanghai  to  act  against  violators  accordingly. 
The  United  States  representative  at  Peking  was  instructed 
to  inform  our  consular  agents  in  China  to  protect  the  Danish 
trade-marks  in  their  courts  according  to  the  agreement.* 

3.    Payment  of  the  Samoan  Claims. 

In  a  treaty  between  the  United  States,  Germany  and 
Great  Britain  in  regard  to  Samoa,  signed  November  7,  1899, 
it  was  provided  (Article  III)  that  claims  arising  as  a  result 
of  the  warlike  operations  at  Apia  should  be  paid  jointly  by  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain.  Danish  subjects  presented 
a  claim  for  $2700  for  the  "destruction  of  live  stock,  injury 
to  houses,  fences,  plantations,  tanks,  and  the  destruction  of 
furniture  and  other  effects."  Two  agents  were  appointed  to 
investigate  the  claims.  C.  J.  B.  Hurst  served  for  Great 
Britain  and  R.  Newton  Crane  for  the  United  States.  They 
found  that  the  value  of  the  material  destroyed  was  exaggerated, 


4  For  text   of   the   correspondence  on   thia   subject,   see   W.    M.   Malloy, 
Treaties,  etc.,  Vol.  I,  pp.  399-401. 


142       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

and  on  December  6,  1905,  rendered  a  decision  that  $1520 
should  be  paid  by  the  two  governments,'  By  a  law  of  January 
30,  1906,  the  share  of  the  United  States,  amounting  to  $760, 
was  allowed  to  the  Danish  claimants.* 

4.    Arhitration  Conventions. 

In  agreement  with  Article  XIX  of  the  Hague  Convention 
of  1899^  to  which  the  United  States  and  Denmark  were  sig- 
natories, an  arbitration  treaty  was  concluded  at  Washington 
on  May  18,  1908,  by  Acting  Secretary  Robert  Bacon  and 
Constantin  Brun.  It  provided  that  matters  of  a  legal  nature 
and  questions  relating  to  the  interpretation  of  treaties  failing 
to  be  settled  by  diplomacy  should  be  referred  to  the  Per- 
manent Court  of  Arbitration  at  The  Hague,  provided  they 
did  not  involve  "the  vital  interests,  the  independence,  or  the 
honor  of  the  two  Contracting  States,  and  do  not  concern 
the  interests  of  a  third  party."  It  was  further  agreed  that 
before  any  case  was  put  before  the  court  a  special  agree- 
ment should  be  concluded  "defining  clearly  the  matter  in 
dispute,  the  scope  of  the  powers  of  the  arbitrators,  and  the 
period  to  be  fixed  for  the  formation  of  the  Arbitral  Tribunal 
and  the  several  stages  of  the  proceedure."  These  preliminary 
agreements  should  be  satisfied  in  due  form.  This  convention 
was  to  last  for  a  period  of  five  years.*  It  does  not  appear 
that  any  case  ever  arose  under  its  provisions. 

During  the  early  years  of  Woodrow  Wilson's  administra- 
tion, his  Secretary  of  State,  William  J.  Bryan,  concluded  a 
series  of  conventions  "for  the  advancement  of  the  cause  of 
general  peace."*  One  of  these  was  concluded  with  Denmark 
on  April  17,  1914,  and  was  signed  by  Secretary  Bryan  and 
Constantin   Brun.     It   provided   that   disputes   which    should 


»  Senate  DocumenU,  59  Cong.,  1   Sess.,  Vol.  IV,  Doc.  160. 
«  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  XXXIV,  Pt.  I,  p.  635. 

For  the  Samoan  treaty,  see  ibid..  Vol.  XXXI,  pp.  1875-1877. 

7  W.  M.  Malloy,  Treaties,  etc..  Vol.  11,  p.  2023. 

8  American  Journal  of  International  Law,  October  1908,  pp.  335.  ff. 
For  text  of  the  treaty,  see  W.  M.  Malloy,  Treaties,  etc.,  Vol.  I,  pp.  401- 
402. 

»  For  the  index  to  Bryan's  treaties  for  the  advancement  of  general 
peace,  see  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  XXXVIII,  Pt.  II,  p.  2299. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       143 

fail  to  be  adjusted  by  diplomacy  should  be  submitted  to  an 
International  Commission  of  five  members.  "One  member 
shall  be  chosen  from  each  country,  by  the  Government  there- 
of; one  member  shall  be  chosen  by  each  Government  from 
some  third  country;  the  fifth  member  shall  be  chosen  by 
common  agreement  between  the  two  Governments."  Neither 
country  should  declare  war  nor  begin  hostilities  while  the 
work  of  the  commission  was  going  on.  The  two  governments 
pledged  themselves  to  "endeavor  to  adjust  the  dispute  directly 
between  them  upon  the  basis  of  the  Commission's  finding." 
The  treaty  was  to  remain  in  force  for  five  years  and  further 
until  twelve  months  after  one  of  the  parties  had  given 
notice  of  its  termination.^" 

5.     The  Purchase  of  the  Danish  West  Indies. 

The  attempt  made  by  President  Lincoln  and  William  H. 
Seward  to  purchase  the  islands  of  St.  Thomas  and  St.  John, 
as  noted  in  Chapter  V,  ended  in  failure  largely  for  political 
reasons.  The  refusal  of  the  Senate  to  ratify  the  treaty,  which 
had  originated  in  this  country,  left  the  United  States  gov- 
ernment in  a  peculiar  situation.  As  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is 
generally  interpreted,  the  United  States  would  oppose  the 
transfer  of  the  islands  to  another  European  country.  It  was 
the  good  fortune  of  the  United  States,  therefore,  that  Den- 
mark was  not  very  anxious  to  get  rid  of  the  islands.  Had 
she  decided,  after  the  Senate's  refusal  to  ratify  the  treaty, 
to  transfer  the  islands  to  some  European  power,  say  Ger- 
many, it  seems  that  our  government  would  either  have  had 
to  acquiesce  or  change  its  mind  on  the  question  of  purchase. 

The  unsuccessful  transaction  of  the  sixties  had  a  peculiar 
influence  on  the  inhabitants  of  the  islands.  The  plebiscite 
had  shown  that  they  were  all  in  favor  of  the  transfer.  The 
action  of  the  Senate  cruelly  disappointed  the  islanders  and 
left  them  restless  and  discontented.  They  had  hoped  for 
much  improved  conditions  under  the  government  of  the  United 
States.  The  people,  whether  Caucasian  or  Negro,  had  very 
little  in  common  with  Denmark.  Even  the  language  used 
was  English,  although  the  official  language  was  Danish.     Men 


10  Ibid.,  pp.  1883-1885. 


144       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

who  were  far-seeing  realized  that  the  purchase  of  the  islands 
by  the  United  States  at  some  future  date  was  inevitable." 

The  question  of  the  transfer  of  the  islands  came  to  the 
front  again  and  again  until  the  purchase  was  finally  con- 
summated. It  was  a  constant  temptation  for  Denmark  to 
sell  the  West  India  possessions  because  the  sale  might  bring  a 
neat  sum  of  money  into  the  Danish  treasury.  Added  to  this 
was  the  fact  that  the  islands  were  a  financial  burden  to  the 
mother  country,  while  both  Germany  and  Great  Britain  were 
willing  to  purchase  them  and  were  in  every  way  better 
equipped  to  take  care  of  them. 

In  1874  a  rumor  reached  the  United  States  that  Germany 
was  trying  to  negotiate  a  treaty  with  Denmark  by  which 
Danish  Schleswig,  which  Prussia  had  taken  by  force  in  1864, 
was  to  be  re-ceded  to  the  mother  country  for  the  island  of 
St.  Thomas.  Secretary  Fish  instructed  Michael  J.  Cramer 
to  discover  whether  there  was  any  truth  in  the  rumor.  Cramer 
reported  that  the  charge  d'affaires  of  the  German  Empire 
at  Copenhagen  (the  regular  minister  being  absent)  had  stated 
positively  that  the  rumor  was  unfounded.  George  Bancroft, 
our  representative  at  Berlin,  stated  that  he  had  assurances 
from  the  German  government  that  no  negotiations  were  in 
progress  and  that  it  would  not  accept  the  Danish  islands  as 
a  gift.  He  added,  however,  that  the  decision  on  the  Alabama 
claims  had  shown  the  German  naval  authorities  how  weak 
would  be  their  position  in  case  of  a  war,  and  that  they  were 
anxious  to  obtain  coaling  stations  in  various  parts  of  the 
world.  It  seems  that  Hamilton  Fish  was  not  convinced  for 
he  gave  orders  to  our  representatives  abroad  to  be  watchful 
in  case  any  negotiations  of  that  character  should  occur." 

The  dissatisfaction  of  the  people  of  the  Danish  West 
Indies  came  to  a  head  in  October,  1878,  when  a  revolt  broke 
out  in  St.  Croix  as  the  result  of  a  reduction  in  wages  when 
the  laborers  asked  for  an  increase.  A  riot  was  started  in 
which  forty-three  sugar  plantations  were  destroyed,  the 
damages  amounting  to  $1,100,000.  About  one-half  of  the 
town  of  Fredericksted  was  burned  to  the   ground,  and  only 


11  The  Nation  (1869),  Vol.  VHI,  pp.  248-249. 

12  Foreign  Eelations  of  the  United  States,  1874,  pp.  368,  439-440. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       145 

with  difficulty  was  the  riot  finally  quelled.^^  During  the 
following  winter  a  commission  of  three  was  sent  from  Den- 
mark to  investigate  the  conditions.  The  report  of  this  com- 
mission was  very  gloomy.  The  Minister  of  Finance  had  a 
measure  introduced  in  the  Rigsdag  to  the  effect  that  the  gov- 
ernment should  make  temporary  loans  to  the  sufferers.^* 

After  1867  conditions  in  the  Danish  West  Indies  had  grown 
worse  year  by  year.  Before  that  date  the  islands  had  been 
able  to  furnish  money  for  their  own  government  expenses 
and  even  at  times  to  pay  money  into  the  state  treasury.  The 
sugar  export  from  St.  Croix  had  decreased  from  15,000  hogs- 
heads in  1865  to  3,800  in  1878.  When  introducing  the  bill  for 
financial  aid  to  the  islands,  the  Minister  of  Finance  said:  "it 
is  high  time  a  final  determination  should  be  reached  as  to 
the  exact  position  to  be  assumed  by  the  mother  country  toward 
these  islands,  for  the  present  state  of  things  is  no  longer 
tenable."" 

It  is  not  surprising  that  under  the  circumstances  a  rumor 
should  arise  again  that  Denmark  was  trying  to  sell  the 
islands.^®  The  State  Department  instructed  Michael  J.  Cramer 
to  inquire  into  the  report,  inasmuch  as  we  could  not  regard 
with  indifference  their  transfer  to  any  European  power.  The 
reply  of  the  Danish  government  was  to  the  effect  that  no 
negotiations  were  under  way,  but  that  the  islands  were 
suffering  greatly  and  England  would  be  better  able  to  take 
care  of  them.  Just  what  England  would  do  was  not  known 
to  Denmark.^^  It  would  seem  that  both  at  this  time  as  well 
as  in  1874  there  was  some  truth  in  the  rumor  in  spite  of 
official  denials. 

For  more  than  ten  years  the  matter  rested,  but  in  1892, 
when  Clark  E.  Carr  visited  Jacob  Estrup,  the  Danish  Prem- 
ier, to  obtain  copies  of  the  Icelandic  books  containing  the 
sagas  of  the  discovery  of  America  by  the  Northmen  for  the 

13  Ibid.,  1878,  pp.  160-161;  Ibid., 

"  Ihid.,  1879,  p.  307. 

15  Ibid.,  1880,  p.  345. 

i«  Ibid.,  1879,  pp.  308-309. 

17  Ibid.,  1879,   pp.  308-309,  311. 


146       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

Columbian  Exposition  at  Chicago,  the  conversation  accidentally 
turned  to  the  unsuccessful  treaty  of  1867.  Estrup  made  the 
statement  that,  while  Denmark  was  not  seeking  a  buyer  for 
the  islands,  she  would  be  willing  to  consider  a  proposal  by 
the  United  States.  Later  the  same  opinion  was  expressed  by 
the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Reedts-Thott.  Premier 
Estrup  authorized  Carr  to  mention  the  matter  to  his  govern- 
ment, in  writing  to  the  State  Department  about  this,  Carr 
showed  that  Denmark  was  not  in  financial  difficulties,  but 
that  various  improvements  which  she  intended  to  make  might 
become  a  reality  if  money  could  be  obtained." 

Although  Carr's  correspondence  did  not  elaborate  upon  the 
term  "improvements,"  except  to  mention  the  re-erection  of 
Christiansborg  Castle  which  had  burnt  to  the  ground  in  1884, 
there  can  be  very  little  doubt  in  the  minds  of  those  that  know 
the  history  of  Denmark  during  this  period.  For  years  the 
conservative  or  Hojre  party  had  been  in  favor  of  a  policy  of 
military  fortifications  at  certain  strategic  points,  especially  at 
the  capital,  Copenhagen.  This  was  opposed  by  the  liberals  or 
Venstre.  The  Hojre  party  had  a  majority  in  the  aristocratic, 
appointive,  upper  house  of  the  Rigsdag,  known  as  the 
Landsthing,  but  (after  the  election  of  1884)  could  only  count 
on  twenty  out  of  one  hundred  and  two  members  in  the 
lower  house,  or  Folkething.  It  was  therefore  impossible  for 
the  conservatives  to  carry  any  measure  proposed.  When 
the  conservative  administration  under  the  leadership  of  the 
Premier  Jacob  Estrup  attempted  to  carry  through  their 
cherished  plans,  the  liberals  under  the  leadership  of  Kristen 
Berg  blocked  them  by  refusing  to  allow  money  for  the  ordinary 
government  expenses.  This  was  done  the  first  time  when  the 
Rigsdag  failed  to  pass  the  finance  bill  for  the  fiscal  year,  April 
1,  1877,  to  March  31,  1878.  The  King,  therefore  issued  a 
royal  ordinance,  which  provided  for  the  raising  of  money 
without  the  consent  of  the  Rigsdag.  This  action,  of  course,  was 
unconstitutional  and  had  to  be  enforced  by  gendarmes  who 
patrolled  the  country  to  prevent  rioting.  The  royal  ordinance 
continued  in  force  for  many  years  as  neither    the  Hojre    nor 


18  House  Documents,  57  Cong.,  1  Bess.,  Vol.  XLVIII,  pp.  2795-2797. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       147 

the  Vensire  party  was  willing  to  give  way.^®  It  is  natural 
that  under  these  circumstances  Estrup  might  wish  to  raise 
money  for  the  administration's  program  through  the  sale  of 
the  Danish  West  Indies. 

A  short  time  after  the  suggestion  was  made  to  Clark  E. 
Carr,  a  new  political  party  got  into  control  at  Washington 
and,  somewhat  later,  Jacob  Estrup  was  succeeded  in  the 
premiership  by  Reedtz-Thott,  who  by  wise  concessions  was 
able  to  compromise  with  the  liberals  and  obtain  money  through 
constitutional  means.^°  Consequently  the  question  of  the  trans- 
fer of  the  islands  was  lost  sight  of  for  the  time  being,  although 
John  W.  Foster  had  sent  a  telegram  to  Clark  E.  Carr  on 
February  4,  1893,  instructing  him  to  go  ahead  with  the  ne- 
gotiations.^^ 

In  January,  1896,  the  new  representative  at  Copenhagen, 
John  E.  Risley,  wrote  to  Secretary  of  State  Richard  Olney 
that  the  New  York  papers  had  aroused  much  comment  in 
Copenhagen  by  stating  that  negotiations  were  in  progress  for 
the  sale  of  the  islands,  and  that,  if  the  United  States  did 
not  buy  the  islands,  Germany  would.  Risley  asked  the  Di- 
rector General  of  Foreign  Affairs  concerning  the  truth  of  the 
report.  The  latter  stated  that  the  rumor  was  not  true  but 
that  Denmark  would  be  willing  to  sell  the  islands.  Since  the 
defeat  of  the  treaty  of  1867  in  the  United  States  Senate, 
Denmark  surely  would  not  take  the  official  initiative  in  re- 
opening the  question.  If  the  United  States  should  make  a 
proposition,  it  would  receive  courteous  consideration.^^ 

It  does  not  appear  that  the  Democratic  party  was  in  favor 
of  the  purchase,  since  nothing  was  done  during  Cleveland's 
administration.     The  Republican  partj^,  however,  seemed  to  be 


18  For  the  text  of  the  royal  ordinance  and  the  early  part  of  the  party 
struggle,  see  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States,  1877,  pp.  119-124. 
For  fuller  accounts  of  the  parliamentary  struggle  in  Denmark  from 
1875-1901,  see  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  XII,  292-293;  Frederick 
A.  Ogg,  Governments  of  Europe,  pp.  559-568;  E.  N.  Bain,  Scandinavia, 
pp.  428-431. 

20  Hid., 

21  Hmise  Documents,  57  Cong.,  1   Sess.,  Vol.  XLVII,  pp.  2797-2798. 

22  Ihid.,  pp.  2798-2799. 


148       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

favorable  to  the  idea.  In  its  national  platform  of  1896  there 
was  a  plank  favoring  the  purchase  of  the  islands  in  order 
to  obtain  a  naval  station  in  the  West  Indies.2^  Thus,  the 
party  had  reversed  intself  on  the  subject  since  the  days  of 
Charles  Sumner.  Speeches  were  made  and  articles  written  by 
men  in  favor  of  the  purchase,  and  Charles  Sumner  and  his 
associates  were  taken  to  task  for  their  shortsightedness.^*  It 
was  natural,  then,  that  the  Republicans  should  attempt  to 
purchase  the  islands.  But  before  a  definite  treaty  was  made 
a  little  episode  took  place  which  deserves  to  be  mentioned. 

It  appears  that  a  Danish  naval  officer,  known  as  Walter 
Christmas,^"  who  had  been  courtmartialed  and  dismissed  from 
the  service,  conceived  the  idea  of  recovering  his  social  stand- 
ing by  leading  a  movement  to  sell  the  Danish  West  Indies 
to  the  United  States.  He  also  hoped  to  restore  his  wasted 
fortune  by  obtaining  a  commission  of  ten  per  cent  for  the 
sale.^^.  In  December,  1899,  he  succeeded  in  getting  into  per- 
sonal touch  with  President  McKinley,  who  referred  him  to 
John  Hay,  the  Secretary  of  State.  Hay  seemed  interested 
and  gave  Christmas  a  letter  of  introduction  to  the  American 
Ambassador  at  London.  The  Danish  Envoy  at  Washington 
and  the  American  representative  at  Copenhagen  knew  nothing 
about  the  work  of  Christmas.  Christmas  and  Henry  White, 
the  secretary  of  the  American  Legation  at  London,  went  to 
Denmark  to  negotiate  the  sale  with  the  Danish  officials.  Ravn, 
the  Danish  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  was  much  surprised 
to  learn  what  was  going  on.  While  he  treated  White  very 
courteously,  he  flatly  refused  to  admit  Christmas  to  his  office. 
Christmas,  however,  appealed  to  the  Danish  Premier  and  used 
effectively  John  Hay's  letter  of  introduction.  As  a  result  he 
finally  gained  admittance  to  the  foreign  office.  He  was 
assisted  in  the  negotiations  by  three  other  Americans,  Niels 
Gron,  Henry  H.  Rogers,    and    Charles    R.    Flint,     Christmas 


»8  Beview  of  Beviews,  Vol.  XVII,  p.  549. 

*••  W.  M.  Jones,  "Two  Great  American  Treaties,"  Beview  of  Beviews, 

Vol.  XVn,  p.  560. 

25  His    full   name    was    Walter    Christmas   Dirchinck    Holmfeldt.      House 

Beports,  57  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  IX,  Doc.  2749,  pp.  1-2. 

««  The  Nation,  Vol.  LXXV,  p.  340. 


DANISH- AMEBIC  AN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       149 

informed  the  Danish  officials  that  he  could  negotiate  a  sale 
for  the  islands,  but  that  money  would  be  needed  to  carry 
the  treaty  through  the  United  States  Senate.  "When  this  was 
brought  out,  Denmark  refused  to  carry  the  matter  any  further 
and  the  affair  was  dismissed.^^ 

During  Roosevelt's  first  administration  the  Danish  repre- 
sentative at  Washington,  Constantin  Brun,  and  John  Hay 
susceeded  in  negotiating  a  treaty  for  the  transfer  of  the  is- 
lands to  the  United  States  for  $5,000,000.  This  treaty  was 
ratified  by  the  Senate  and  by  the  Danish  Folkething,  the  low- 
er house  of  the  Rigsdag,  but  was  rejected  by  the  Landsthing, 
the  upper  house  of  that  body.  It  is  generally  conceded,  or 
at  least  believed,  that  the  defeat  was  due  to  German  influence.^® 

For  some  time  the  question  of  purchasing  the  Danish  West 
Indies  rested.  Meantime,  economic  conditions  were  getting 
worse  in  the  islands  and  the  population  was  decreasing.^^  The 
approaching  completion  of  the  Panama  Canal  made  it  still 
more  desirable  for  the  United  States  to  possess  a  good  harbor 
in  the  West  Indies.  From  the  standpoint  of  location  the 
harbor  at  St.  Thomas  was  the  best  in  existence.  It  was 
therefore  natural  that  the  question  of  purchasing  the  islands 
would  arise  again. 

The  outbreak  of  the  war  in  1914  and  the  fact  that  it  was 
believed  that  Germany  would  make  a  strong  bid  for  the 
Danish  West  Indies,  if  she  should  come  out  victorious  in  the 
World  War,  were  perhaps  the  main  reasons  why  negotiations 
were  renewed  for  the  purchase  of  the  islands.  A  treaty  was 
concluded  between  the  two  powers  in  the  city  of  New  York 
on  August  4,  1916,  and  signed  by  Robert  Lansing  for  the 
United   States  and  by  Constantin  Brun   for  Denmark.     The 


27  The  Nation,  Vol.  LXXV,  p.  320;  North  American  Beview,  CLXXV, 
pp.  500-505.  In  the  spring  of  1902  the  whole  affair  was  investigated 
and  proved  to  be  a  scheme  of  Walter  Christmas  and  his  associates.  See 
the  "Richardson  Investigation,"  House  Reports,  57  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol. 
IX,  Doc.  2749. 

28  The  Nation,  October  30,  1902,  Vol.  LXXV,  pp.  340,  393;  Congressional 
Beoord,  64  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Vol.  LIV,  Pt.  IV,  pp.  3647-3651.  For  full 
text  of  the  treaty  of  1902,  see  House  Documents,  57  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol. 
XLVII,  p.  2788. 

29  The  Nation  (1903),  Vol.  LXXVI,  p.  283. 


150       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

Senate  ratified  the  treaty  on  September  7,  1916.  The  ex- 
change of  ratifications  took  place  on  January  17,  1917,  and  the 
formal  transfer  of  the  islands  was  made  on  March  31,  1917,  at 
which  time  the  purchase  price  of  $25,000,000  was  paid  to  the 
Danish  Envoy  at  Washington/" 

Besides  the  customary  articles  in  treaties  of  this  type  pro- 
viding for  cession  and  payment.  Article  III  mentions  a  large 
number  of  grants,  concessions  and  licenses  which  the  Danish 
government  had  granted  various  firms.  These  are  guaranteed 
to  remain  inviolate  under  the  government  of  the  United  States. 
The  question  of  the  Danish  National  Church  in  the  islands 
became  the  subject  of  separate  notes  exchanged  between  the 
two  governments  on  January  3,  1917.  The  arrangement  here 
made  was  that  the  islands  might  be  put  on  the  same  basis  in 
regard  to  religion  as  that  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.^^ 

In  conformity  with  the  Danish  constitution,  the  treaty 
had  to  be  ratified  by  the  Rigsdag.  Before  the  subject  was 
taken  up  in  that  body  for  discussion,  the  administration 
caused  a  plebiscite  to  be  held  in  the  islands  which  turned  out 
to  be  overwhelmingly  in  favor  of  the  transfer.'*  The  question 
was  also  put  before  the  people  of  the  home  country  in  order 
that  the  Rigsdag  might  learn  public  opinion  in  regard  to  the 
matter.  The  date  set  for  the  election  was  December  14,  1916. 
The  liberal  students  of  Denmark,  backed  by  the  administration 
and  the  Copenhagen  newspaper  Politiken,  led  the  movement 
in  favor  of  the  sale.  They  argued  that  Denmark  should  con- 
centrate her  attention  on  her  northern  colonies,  Greenland, 
Iceland  and  the  Faero  islands,  and  get  rid  of  the  unprofitable 
West  Indies.  The  conservatives,  backed  by  the  Nationaltidende, 
another  Copenhagen  newspaper,  held  that  Denmark  should  not 
part   with  any  of  her  territory.'*     During  the   week   of  De- 


80  statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  XXXIX,  pp.  1706-1717. 

81  Ibid.,  pp.  1716-1717. 

82  Congressional  Beoord,  64  Cong.,  2  Seas.,  Vol.  LIV,  Pt.  VT,  p.  697. 
33  Politiken,  December  4,  7,  14,  1916.     Practically  everj-  issue  of  Politiken 
from  August  1  to  December  28,  1916,  contains  articles  dealing  with  the 
sale  of  the  islands.    On  December  7,  1916,  the  paper  issued  a  supplement 
edited  by  the  Radical  Students'  Association.     This  contained  statements 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       151 

cember  6-12,  1916,  great  massmeetings  were  held  in  twenty- 
five  strategic  points  in  different  parts  of  the  kingdom.  These 
meetings  were  under  the  leadership  of  the  radical  students 
who  spoke  vehemently  against  the  "unsound  sentimentalism" 
of  the  conservatives.**  The  fact  that  since  the  treaty  was 
made  and  ratified  by  the  United  States  a  very  destructive 
cyclone  had  passed  over  the  islands  and  destroyed  close  to 
a  million  dollars'  worth  of  property  was  also  used  effectively 
by  the  pro-sale  element.*^ 

When  the  election  returns  were  complete,  it  was  found  that, 
out  of  1,250,000  voters  in  the  kingdom,  only  441,290  had  used 
the  ballot.  Of  these  about  283,000  were  in  favor  of  the  sale 
and  the  rest  against  it.  From  this  the  conservatives  drew  the 
conclusion  that,  as  only  one-fifth  of  the  voters  had  expressed 
themselves  in  favor  of  the  sale,  the  West  Indies  should  be 
retained.  The  conclusion,  however,  might  fairly  be  reached 
that  the  election  showed  that  the  people  in  general  did  not 
care  a  whit  whether  the  islands  were  sold  or  retained.  On 
December  20,  1916,  the  Folkething  voted  90  to  16  in  favor 
of  the  sale,  and  the  following  day  the  Landsthing  followed 
with  a  favorable  vote  of  40  to  19.  The  King  signed  the 
treaty  on  December  22,  1916**  As  stated  above,  the  transfer 
was  completed  three  months  later.  Thus  was  completed  a  trans- 
action which  was  surely  beneficial  to  Denmark  and,  we  trust, 
will  not  be  regretted  by  the  United  States.*^  At  the  time  the 
transfer  took  place,  the  United  States  Congress  had  already 
passed  an  act  providing  for  a  temporary  government  as  well 
as  for  the  payment  of  $25,000,000  to  Denmark.*^ 


by  every  member  of  the  Council  for  the  Colonies,  who  were  all  in  favor 
of  the  sale.     See  Tillceg  til  Politiken,  December  7,  1916. 

34  Ibid. 

35  The  cyclone  struck  the  islands  October  9-10,  1916.  Politiken,  Decem- 
ber 7,  1916. 

36  Politiken,  December  15,  18,  20,  21,  22,  23,  1916. 

37  For  a  brief  history  of  the  Danish  West  Indies,  see  House  Documents, 
57  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  XL VII,  pp.  2765  ff;  Congressional  Beoord,  64 
Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  LIV,  Pt.  VI,  pp.  694-697.  For  a  more  complete 
history  of  the  islands,  see  Waldemar  Westergaard,  The  Danish  West 
Indies,  1671-1917. 

38  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  XXXIX,  Pt.  I,  pp.  1132-1134. 


APPENDICES 
APPENDIX  A 

An  extract  of  a  letter  from  Andreas  Peter  Bernstorff  to  Ditlev 
Reventlow,   dated  Copenhagen,  December  27,  1777. 

"Si  1 'ind6pendance  de  I'Am^rique  septentrionale  n 'avert  pas  d'autres 
suites  que  de  mettre  des  bomes  a  1 'ambition  des  Anglois  et  de  les 
mettre  hors  d'6tat  d 'usurper  1 'empire  tyrannique  sur  les  mers,  je  la 
regarderois  comme  un  bonheur,  et  je  n'aurois  pas  besoin  d 'arguments 
pour  m'en  consoler,  mais  quand  je  pense  aux  difficultes  qu'il  y  aura 
de  soutenir  alors  nos  possessions  dans  ces  parages  61oign6s,  la  diminution 
du  commerce  de  la  Baltique,  le  danger  que  la  peche  de  Groenlande,  si 
voisne  de  l'Am6rique,  ne  pent  que  courir,  la  rivalit6  pour  toutes  les 
productions  du  nord  en  g6n6ral  et  la  superiority  que  la  France  re- 
prendra  des  1 'instant  que  I'Angleterre  cessera  de  la  lui  disputer,  alors 
je  ne  puis  que  m'inquieter,  et  pr6voir,  un  avenir  rempli  de  doutea  et 
d 'incertitudes.  L'Angleterre  se  propose  certainment  de  se  stipuler, 
meme  en  reconnoissais  1 'ind^pendance  de  ses  colonies,  des  avantages 
dans  la  commerce  suffisants  pour  faire  entrer  les  produits  de  I'Am^rique 
et  surtout  le  tabac  dans  sa  proper  balance,  mais  cette  ressource  lui 
sera  encore  vivement  contest^e.  Je  soubgonne  qu'il  existe  d6jk  un 
traits  de  commerce  entre  le  congres  et  al  France,  qui  asseure  k  celle-ci 
des  avantages  futurs  decisive,  et  si  mes  conjectures  sent  fonde&s,  je 
crains  que  ce  sera  \k  le  germe  d'une  guerre  presque  certaine,  que 
I'Angleterre  poussera  jusque  h  son  triomphe  ou  jusques  k  son 
an^antissement  parfait.  L'emprunt  de  25  millions  que  la  France  vient 
d'ouvrier,  est  uniquement  destine  aux  d^penses  que  le  retablissement  de 
sa   marine   exige.''^ 

APPENDIX  B 

An  extract  of  a  letter  from  A.  P.  Bernstorflf  to  the  Council  of  State, 
dated  March   17,  1780. 

"Wachsen  Uns  vielleicht  durch  die  Unabhangigheit  von  America 
solche  Vortheile  zu,  die  Uns  wegen  aller  iibrigen  zubesorgenden  Folgen 
schadlos  halten  kdnnten?  Nein!  gerade  das  Gegentheil.  Ea  ist  kein 
eintziger  Staat  von  Europa,  Engelland  selber  nicht  ausgenommen,  fiir 
den  diese  Unabhangigheit  so  drohend  und  so  nachtheilig  ist,  als  fiir 
Dannemark;  und  es  ist  Pflicht  fiir  mich,  die  Hauptbeweise  dieses  von 
mir   langst   behaupteten    Satzcs   anzufiihren. 

1)  Es   is   eine   Unmoglichheit    fiir    Dannemark    seine    Colonien,    die    als 


1  Aage  Friis,   Bematorfftke   Papirer,  Vol.   Ill,    pp.   541-542. 

152 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       153 

Zuckerinseln   ein  besonderer  Gegenstand   des   Neides   der   Nordamerieaner 
sind,   gegan  kiinftige   Angriffe   derselben   zu   vertheydigen. 

2)  K6nnen  wir  verschiedene  producten  dieser  lender,  als  z.  E.  des 
Reises,  Tobaeks,  und  Indigo  nicht  ganzlich  entbehren,  haben  aber 
selber  keine,  die  innen  niitzlich  seyn  kfinnten  und  zum  Tausche  dienlich 
waren;  miissen  sie  also  mit  baarem  Gelde  oder  mit  Zucker  bezahlen. 

3)  Sind  sie  in  Anaehung  aller  unseser  zur  Ausfuhr  dienlichen  Wahren, 
fast  ohne  Ausnahme,  unsere  BivaJe:  Insonderheit  was  das  Korn,  daa 
Holz,  und  was  noch  bedenklicher  ist,  die  Fiseherey  betrifft.  Ja  sie 
haben  in  Ansehung  des  Wallfish  ....  wegen  ihre  Lage  solche 
natiirliche  Vortheile,  dass  so  bald  sie  nicht  mehr  werden  bezwungen 
seyn,  diese  Ihre  Wahren  nach  Engelland  zu  fiihren  sondem  nach  alle 
Markte  und  Hafen  von  Europa  bringen  Konnen  sie  Uns  ohnfehlbar  von 
denselben   ganzlich    ausschliessen  werden 

4)  Wird  durch  ihre  directe  Earth  nach  den  Hafen  der  Mittel- 
landische  See,  der  Handel  mit  den  production  der  an  dem  Ostsee 
belegenen  Lander,  dergestalt  fallen,  dass  der  ZundzoU  so  betrachtlich 
leiden  wird,  dass  der  Schade  wohl  vorausgesehen,  aber  gewiss  nich 
berechnet    werden  kann "2 

APPENDIX  C 

The  treaty  to  which  the  Danish  diplomat  referred  in  his  negotiation 
with  Franklin  was  that  between  Charles  II  of  England  and  Frederick 
III  of  Denmark.  It  was  concluded  February  13,  1660,  Old  Style, 
or  February  23,  1661,  New  Style.     Article  V  reads  as  follows: 

"Concordatum  quoque  est,  quod  neuter  praedictorum  Regum  alterius 
inimicos  seu  rebelles  in  Regnis  et  Provinciis  suis  recipiet,  aut  tolerabit 
dummodo  inimicos  ejus  aut  rebelles  esse  reseiverit.  Et  si  forte  aliqua 
tapeta  ....  vel  alia  cujuscunque  bona  mobilia  ad  Regum  Magnae 
Britanniae  spectantia  penes  Regem  Daniae  et  Norwegiae,  aut  aliquem 
subditorum  suorum  jam  nunc  sunt,  aut  de  futuro,  protimus  restituantur, 
et  transmittantur  ad  Regem  Magnae  Britanniae,  aut  tradantur  iis  quos 
sua  Majestas  ad  ea  recipienda  deputaverit.  Item,  si  qui  eorum,  qui 
rei  sunt  illius  nefandi  paricidii  in  Regem  Carolum  Primum  Britanniae 
Magnae  admissi,  ac  legitime  de  eodem  scelere  attincti,  condamnati  et 
convicti,  vel  jam  sunt  in  Dominiis  Regis  Daniae,  vel  post  illuc  ad- 
venient,  statim  quam  Regi  Daniae,  vel  aliquibus  officiariis  innotuerit, 
vel  relatum  fuerit,  prehensi  in  custodiam  dentur,  et  vincti  in  Angliam 
remittantor,  vel  in  corum  manus  tradantur,  quos  dictus  Rex  Magnae 
Britanniae   iis   custodiendis,    denique   revehendis   praef ecerit. '  '3 

The  treaty  is  thus  introduced:  "De  konincklijcke  Denemarcksche 
Secretarius   hier    door   passerende   communiceerde    dit   volghende   Tractaet 


2  Ed.     Holm,     "Danmarks     Neutralitetsforhandlinger,      1778-1780"     Eistorish     liis- 
shrift,    3    dje    Rsekke,    Vol.    V.    pp.    77-78. 

3  Jacques    Bernard,    Recueil    des    Traitez,    Vol.    IV,    p.    30;    Lieuwe    van    Aitzema, 
Zaken   van   Staat   en   Oorlogh,   Vol.   IV,    p.    845. 


154       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

/tusschen  sijn  koningh  ende  die  van  Engelandt  gemaecktAoewel  sonder 
dato/ofte  onderechrijvingfe.  "* 

The  following  footnote  is  also  found  in  Du  Mont,  op.  oit.,  Vol.  VT, 
p.  348.  "Ce  meme  Traits  se  trouve  deux  fois  dans  la  premiere  Edition 
de  ce  Grand  Becueil  de  HoUande  Tom.  IV.  la  premiere  fois  pag.  29, 
avec  un  Preambule,  sur  la  Copie  d'Aitzema,  et  la  seconde  fois  pag. 
697,  sur  une  Copie  manuscrite;  dat^  du  Fevrier  1660.  Celli-ci  difere 
en  quelque  de  toutes  les  autres  ct  peut  passer  pour  authentique,  ayant 
6t6  publico  sous  les  jeux  de  la  Cour  et  du  Parlement,  par  I'Imprimeur 
du  Boi.  On  croit  que  la  Date  en  doit  3tre  entendue  selon  le  stile 
d'Anglcterre  qui  rovient  au  mois  de  Fevrier  1661,  stile  Gregorien." 

APPENDIX  D 

The  statement  upon  which  the  historians,  Fredericia  and  Schafer  base 
their  conclusions  in  regard  to  the  origin  of  the  Sound  Dues  reads  as 
follows : 

"Vom  Liibecker  Tage  im  July  1423  erfahren  wir:  'Na  der  tiid 
begherden  se  (des  koninges  rad  to  Kopenhavene),  uppe  dat  de  crone 
wat  hebben  mochte  to  erer  herlicheyd,  int  erste,  dat  eyn  islik  schip  in 
dem  Orssunde  streke  unde  geve  also  vele,  also  de  stede  sulven  wolden, 
dat  redelik  were,  odder  dat  alle  Zeevund  der  cronen  halfl  worde  unde  deme 
dat  tovoren  tobehorede,  efte  dat  men  den  tollen  to  Schone  vorhogede, 
wente  de  schepe  vormerden  sik  van  dage  to  dage  unde  de  penning 
vorerghede  sik.     Unde  bii  dem  sulven  lesten  artikele  bleven  se'    "s 

APPENDIX  E 

Aabent    Kongebrev. 

JuU  20de,  1633. 
"Efftersom  vi  haffuer  ladett  sette  brokar  ved  den  haffn  for  vor 
kjobsted  Helsingor,  da  haffuer  vi  naadigste  for  guod  andseet,  at  her 
effter  skall  ungiffues  haffne  penge  i  saa  maader  som  effterfolger:  fdrst 
skall  huer  skude  eller  skibe  giffue  aff  huer  lest  om  sommeren  to 
schilling  Dansch,  och  huer  som  vil  legge  offuer  om  vinteren  skaU  giffue 
4  schilling  Dansch;  desligeste  skall  huer  baad  giffue  om  sommeren  I 
sosUng  og   om  vinteren   I   skilling  Dansch. "« 


*  We   have   obtained   the   date   from    Ivaro    Qnistgaard,    Index  Chronolofficut,    1200- 
1789,    p.     104. 

B  Dietrich    Schafer,    "Zor   Frage   nach    der   Einfnhmng   des    Sundzolls,"    Hantiteh* 
Oetchichttblaetter,  Jalxrgaiig,   1875,   pp.   34-35. 

«  Sjselandske  Registre  No.   19,  fol.   143.    Quoted  by  C.  F.  Wegener,   OeheimerarkiveU 
Aartberetninifer,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  94. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       155 


APPENDIX  F 


Table  of  Money  Values^ 
Danish  Currency  before  1873. 

1    Eosenoble 

Specie  dollar. 

Specie  dollar 

Specie  dollar. 

Specie  dollar. 

Goldgulden : 

Bixdollar 

BixdoUar 

BixdoUar. 

Ort 


,=  4%  RixdoUars 

.=      2  EixdoUars    — 

.=     12  Mark 

.=  192  Skilling 

.=    48  Stivers 


Bixmark 

Stiver. 

Skilling. 

Modem   Danish   Currency. 

1    Krone 

1  American  Dollar 


:1  1/3  Bixdollars = 

=  3  Marc  banco  of  Hamb 'g= 

=  6  Mark   (Danish)   = 

=  4  Ort  (or  Bixort)  = 

=  24  Skilling = 

=  16  Skilling    = 

=  20  Skilling    = 

=  4  Skilling  = 


$2.27 

1.07 

1.07 

1.07 

1.07 
.71 
.53% 
.53% 
.53% 
.13^ 


.11 

.021/5 

.0055 


..=100    ore     

.=3  Kroner   76   6re. 


..=    $  .26.8 


APPENDIX  G 

SundzoUpass.* 
BEI  SB.  KCENIGL,  MAJEST^T  VON  DhAJ^MABK,  DEE  WENDEN, 

ETC.  ETC. 
Zollkammer  in  Oeresund  hat  sich  geburlich  gemeldet  der  Schiffsfiihrer 
N.   N.   Schiff  N.   N.   131.     N.   Lasten  von   Stettin,   kommt  von   Stettin 
mit  umstehender  Ladung  gehend  nach  Sunderland  und  hat  klarirt,  wie 
sich  gebiirt. 

Oeresund-ZoUkammer,  den  25  November   1844. 

Holten. 
Vorbemeldeter  Schiflfsfiihrer  hat  geladen: 

819    Stiick   eichener   Sehiflfhfilzer 
Zoll:     24  Bthl.  28  St. 
Foring:     —  Bthl.  47  St. 


Feuergelder : 


23  Bthl.  29  St. 
4  Ethl.  24  St. 


28  Ethl. 


5  St. 
Ot.    Prosch. 


7  This  table  is  worked  out  from  facts  presented  in  Executive  Doctunentt,  33  Cong., 
1  Sess.,  Doc.  108,  p.  3;  William  Guthrie,  A  New  Geographical,  Historical,  and 
Commercial  OrammMr,  p.  662,  folder;  and  John  Macgregor,  Oommereial  Statiatiea. 
Vol.   I,   p.    158. 

8  Each  ship  passing  the  Sound  had  to  obtain  a  similar  certificate  as  a  receipt 
that  Sound  Dues  were  paid.  This  sample  is  taken  from  H.  Scherer,  Der  SundzoU, 
Beilage   B,  pp.   302-303. 


156       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 


8p.     Bdlr.     Bt. 
Zollamts-Gebiiren   :  3  — 

Inspecteur  :  1  6    —  N.     B.     weshalbf       %     Unvollat. 

:  Schiffspapieref 

Copie  :  —  8    —  N.  B.  Fiir  Abschrift   des  Passes 

Mulct     :  1  N.    B.    Weil    die    Papiere    wahr- 

scheinlich  nicht  durch  den  Capt. 
Oder    Steuermann    zur    ZoUkam- 
mer  gebracht  sind.  §  34  der  Conv. 
G.   Prosch 

APPENDIX  H 

Specifications  of  the  Sound  Dues  p.  Constantia  of  Fayal,  Captain  J. 
Chriszostomo  from  Fayal  bound  for  Baltic. 

SHIPPERS  CONSIGNEES 

Joao  d 'Almeida  Lima  A.    Vieira   Maciel. 

JAL  17/1  &  3/2  &  9/6  Pipes  Wine Sp.     40 


Domingos  Eibeiro  de  Carvalho 
D.   E.   G.   20   Pipes  Wine 


Do. 

....Sp. 


40 


Schultz  in  Stettin. 


A.  V.  Maciel 

FRLP.        71/1 

— Pipes  Wine"! 

IFPS            3/2 

— Pipes  Wine 

5/6 

— Pipes  Wine 

.. 

2/2 

— Pipes  Wine 

A.    J.    F.    Eocka 

AIFE         49/1 

— Pipes  Wine" 

Sp.  147 


A.  V.  Maciel. 


MIR 

EEIS        22/2  —Pipes   Wine 

Without  bills  of  Lading  according  to  the  Manifest 
4/1  &  4/2  &  /8/6  Pipes  Wine. 

Belonging  to  the  Captain 
1/2   Pipe  Wine   free 


.Sp.  120 


Sound  Customhouse  the  8  Juli,  1843 
Pr.  Olrik.  Engelsen. 


~.Sp.  21  24 

Sp. 

Spc.  Bdlrs.  368     24 


9  A  similar  bill  was  made  out  by  the  castomhonse   officers  for  the  cargo   of  each 
ship.     This  sample  is  taken  from  H.   Scherer,   Der  SundzoU,  Beilage   N,  p.  812. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       157 


APPENDIX  I 

United   States   Representatives   at    Copenhagen 
Name  and  residence  Bank  Time  of  Service 

Minister 1810-1812. 

d'affaires 1812-1819. 

1819-1827 

d  'affaires 1827-1835 

d'affaires 1835-1841. 

d'affaires 1841-1842. 

d'affaires 1842-1846. 

d'affaires _ 1847-1849. 

d'affaires. 1849-1851. 

d  'affaires 1852-1853. 

d  'affaires'! 
Resident  l 1853-1858. 


George  W.  Erwing,  Mass -Special 

John  M.   Forbes. Charg^ 

No   representative 

Henry  Wheaton,  N.  Y Charg6 

Jonathan  F.  Woodside,   Ohio Charge 

Isaac  R.  Jackson,  Pa -Charge 

William  "W.  Irwin,  Pa -Charge 

Robert  P.  Flenniken,  Pa Charg4 

Walter  Forward,  Pa ~ - Charge 

Miller  Grieve,  Ga X^h&Tg6 

rCharg^ 
Henry    Bedinger, 


Va J  Minister 

James  M.  Buchanan,  Md Minister  Resident 1858-1861. 

Bradford   R.   Wood,   N.  Y .Minister  Resident 1861-1865. 

George  H.  Yeaman,  Ky Minister  Resident. 1865-1870. 


Michael   J.   Cramer,   Ky J  Minister    Resident  I 1870-1882. 

ICharg6    d'affaires  I 

James    P.   Wickersham,    Pa Charg6  d'affaires 1882 

Henry  B.  Ryder .Charg6  d  'affaires  ad  interim  1882-1883. 

Wickham   Hoffman .Minister  Resident 1883-1885. 

Rasmus  B.  Anderson,  Wis JVIinister  Resident. 1885-1889. 

fMinister   Resident;   En-~j 
Clark  E.  Carr,  111 |voy    Extraordinary   and(.  1889- 

Minister  Plenipotenitary  | 

John  E.  Risley,  Ind 

Lauritz  S.  Swenson,  Minn 

Thomas   J.  O'Brien,   Mich 

Maurice  F.  Egan,  D.  C 

Norman  Hapgood,  N.  Y 

Joseph  C.  Grew,  Mass 


Envoy    Extraordinary 

and 

"Minister    Plenipotentiary" 


ri893- 
1897- 
1905 
1907- 


1920 


1893. 

1897. 
1905. 
1907. 
1918. 
1919. 
1921. 


Danish  Representative  at  Washington 


Name 
J.    Blicker    Olson. 

Peder  Pederson 

Steen  Bille 

Torben  Bille 


Rank                 Time 
-Minister     Resident 


-Minister  Resident.. 


Charge   d'affaires.. 

Charge  d  'affaires... 

W.  R.  Raaalfiff Charge   d'affaires.. 

J.    Hegermann-Lindencrone. Charg6  d  'affaires.. 

Carl  Steen  Anderson  Bille Minister  Resident.. 

P.  L.  E.  de  L6ven8m Minister  Resident.. 


of  Service 
...1800-1805. 
...1805-1826. 
...1826-1854. 
....1854-1858 
._1858-1866. 
...1866-1880. 
-.1880-1884. 
„1884-1888. 


158       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

F.    W.    Spoimeck. Minister  Resident 1888-1894. 

F,  de  Eeventlow Minister  Resident 1894-1895. 

fEnvoy    Extraordinary"| 
Constantin  Brun _|  and  Minister  Plenipo-  i 1895-1908. 

jtentiary  j 

Count     Moltke |    Envoy  Extraordinary  11908-1913. 

\  and  I 

Constantin  Bran [Minister    Plenipotentiary!  1913- 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

1.    PRIMARY  SOURCES 

Adams,    John    Q.,    Writmgs    of    John    Qvmcy    Adams.      Edited    by 

Worthington  C.  Ford.     7  vols.  New  York  1913-1917. 
Aitzema,  Lieuwe  van,  Zaken  vmi  Stoat  en  Oologh.    6  vols.    Graven- 

Haghe,   1669. 
American  Annual  Register,  18Sl-18Si,  Vol.  XII.  8  vols.  New  York, 

1825-1833. 
Amerioan  Journal    of   International   Law,    1908,    Vol.    II,    '*  Official 

Documents."  New  York,  1908. 
American  State  Papers,  Naval  Affairs,   Edited   by   Lowrie,   Walter, 

and  Clarke  M.  St.  Clair.  2  vols.  Washington,   1832-1834. 
American  State  Papers,  Foreign  Eelations.     Edited  by  the  Secretary 

of  State.     6  vols.  Washington,  1832-1859. 
Amerioan  State  Papers,  Naval  Affairs.  Edited  by  the   Secretary  of 

State.     4  vols.  Washington,  1834-1861. 
Annals  of  Congress  of  the  United  States,  1789-18184.    42  vols.  Wadi- 

ington,  1834-1856. 
Anon.,    ''Afl6sning    af    Sund    og   Belttolden,"    Historisk    Tidsskrift, 

1857-1858,   3dje    R<Bkke,    Vol.    I.    A    collection    of    documents    in 

the  Danish  language   connected  with   the   abolition  of   the   Sound 

Dues. 
Anon.,   "The   St.   Thomas   Treaty."  A  translation   from   Daghladet, 

April  24,  1869.     Copenhagen. 
Appleton's  Annual  Cyclopedia,  1868,  New  York.     For  the   political 

platforms  of  1868. 
Bang,    Nina    Ellinger,    Taheller    over    Skibsfart    og    Varetramsport 

gennem  Oresund,  1497-1660.  Leipzig  og  Kobenhavn,  1906.  Bilingual, 

Danish  and  French. 
Bayard,    James   A.,    "Papers   of    James    A.    Bayard."     Edited    by 

Elizabeth   Donnan.      Annual    Beport    of   the   American  Sistorioal 

Association,  1913,  Vol.  II.     Washington,  1915. 
Benton,  Thomas  H.,  Thirty  Years'  View,  or,  a  History  of  the  Work- 
ings  of   the  American   Government   for   Thirty    Tears,   from  18S0- 

1850.     2  vols.     New  York,  1854-1856.     Second  edition,  New  York, 

1897. 
Bernard,  Jaques,  Becueil  des  Traitis.     5  vols.     Amsterdam,  1700. 
Bernstorff,    Andreas    P.,    Bemstorffske    Papvrer,    Fdgivet    af    Aage 

Friis.     3  Bind.  Kfibenhavn,  1913.     A  collection  of  letters. 
Bigelow,  John,  France  and  the  Confederate  Navy.     New  York,  1888. 

Contains  much  of  the  correspondence  connected  with  the  Stonewall 

case. 

169 


160       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

Buchanan,  James,  TJie  Works  of  James  Buchanan.     Edited  and  col- 
lected by  John  Bassett  Moore.    12  vols.     Philadelphia,  1908-1911. 
Calhoun,  John  C,  The  Works  of  John  C.  Calhoun.    Edited  by  Richard 

K.  Crall6.    6  vols.     New  York,  1888. 
"Letters  of   John  C.   Calhoun,"   Editted   by  J.   Franklin   Jameson. 

Annual  Beport  of  the  American  Historical  Association,  1899,  Vol. 

II.    Washington,  1900. 
Census   Reports. 

The  Seventh  Census  of  the  United  States,  1860.     By  J.  D.  B.  De 

Bow.     Washington,   1853. 

The  Eighth  Census,  Population  of  the  United  States  in  1860.     By 

Joseph  C.  G.   Kennedy.     Washington,   1864. 

Ninth  Census — Volume  I,  The  Statistics  of  the  Population  of  the 

United  States,  1870.    By  Francis  A.  Walker.     Washington,  1872. 
Congressional   Globe,  18S4-187S.     108  vols.     Volume  used,  40  Cong., 

1  Sess.,  Appendix.     Washington,   1867. 
Congressional  Eecord. 

45  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Vol.  VII,  Pt.  IV. 

51  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  XXI,  Pt.  VHI. 

64  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Vol.  LIV,  Pts.  IV  and  VI. 

Washington,  1873— 
Cranch,    William,    Beports   of   Cases    Argued   and   Adjudged    in    the 

Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.     9  vols.  Washington,  1817. 
Danske   Tractater,  1761-1800. 

K6benhavn,   1882. 
1800-1863.     K6benhavn,  1871. 

Du    Mont,   Jean,    Corps    Universelle   Diplomatique.     6   vols.    Amster- 
dam, 1728, 
Franklin,  Benjamin,  The  Works  of  Benjamin  Franklin.     Edited  by 

Jared  Sparks.     10  vols.  Boston  and  New  Orleans,  1840. 
Complete  Works  of  Benjamin  Franklin.  Edited  by  John  Bigelow.  10  vol 

New  York,  1887-1888. 
Foreign  Belations  of  the  United  States,  Papers  relating  to.     47  vols. 

Washington,  1861-1908. 
General  Collection  of  Treaties,  A,  1496-1731.     4  vols.  London  1733. 
Guthrie,    William,   A    New    Geographical    and   Commercial    Grammar. 

London,   1790. 
Hansard,   T.  C.    (and  others),  Parliamentary  Debates.     Vols.  CXLI, 

CXLII,   and   CXLIV.     London,    1812. 
Eanserecesse.     Ist   Serie,    8    Band;    2te    Serie,    7    Band;    3te    Serie, 

9  Band.     Leipzig,  1870-1913.     This  is  a  collection  of  reprints  of 

old  documents  pertaining  to  the  Hansa  towns. 
JeflFerson,  Thomas,    Writings  of   Thomas  Jefferson.     Edited  by  Paul 

Leicester  Ford.     10  vols.     New  York  and  London,  1894. 
Journals  of  the  American  Congress,  1774-1788.     4  vols.  Washington, 

1823. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       161 

Journals  of  the  American  Congress,  1774-1789. 

23  vols.  Vols.  1-15,  edited  by  Worthington  C.  Ford.  Wash- 
ington, 1904-1909.  Vols.  16-23,  edited  by  Gaillard  Hunt.  Wash- 
ington, 1910-1914.  Edited  from  the  original  records  in  the  Li- 
brary of  Congress. 

Keith,  Robert  M.,  Memoirs  and  Correspondence.     London,   1849. 

King,  Charles  R.,  Life  and  Correspondence  of  Bufus  King.  6  vols. 
New  York,   1894. 

Law  for  the  Government  of  Privateers  and  Prize-Courts  in  the  Do- 
minion of  Denmark.  Rendaburg,  September  14,  1807.  Translated 
by  Peter  Frellsen.     Christiansand,  1809. 

MeDermott,  Hugh  F.,  Letters  on  the  Sound  Dues — Question.  I-VEI. 
By  Pax.     New  York,  1855. 

Macgregor,  John,  Commercial  Statistics.     5  vols.     London,  1844-1848. 

Malloy,  William  M.,  Treaties,  Conventions,  International  Acts,  Pro- 
tocols and  Agreements  between  the  United  States  and  other 
Powers,  1776-1909     2.  vols.   Washington,   1910. 

Marien,  M.  Thomas  Antoine  de,  Tahleani  des  Droits  et  Usages  de 
Commerce  Belatifs  oai  Passage  du  Sund.     Copenhagen,  1776. 

Martens,  G.  Fr.  de,  Eecueil  des  TraitSs.  1494-1874.  Gottingne,  1876. 
1776-1907.     Gottingne,   1900-1910.     96  vols,  in  all. 

New   York  Tribune,  185S-1856. 

Niles'  Weekly  Begister.  (1826),  Vol.  XXXI,  pp.  220-221;  (1832), 
Vol.  XXXVIII,  pp.   307-308.     Baltimore. 

Oresund  und  Stromsollrolle.    Kopenhagen,     1842.     Law  of  1841. 

Politiken.     Copenhagen,  1916. 

Quistgaard,  Ivaro,  Index  Chronologicus,  1200-1789.     Gottingae,  1792. 

Richardson,  James  D.,  A  Compilation  of  the  Messages  and  Papers 
of  the  Presidents,  1789-1697.     10  vols.  Washington,  1896-1899. 

Begista  Diplomatioae  Historiae  Daniae.     K6benhavn,    1880. 

Begister  of  Debates  in  Congress.     (Congressional  Debates),  1824-1834. 
19  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Vol.  III.  Washington,  1826. 
21  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Vol.  VIL  Washington,  1831. 

Rigsarkivet,  Dept.  F.  A. 

Nordamerika  I,  A.  Fdrste  Pakke.     178S-1786. 
Nordamerika  II.    Anden  Pakke.     Bapporter  1821-1829. 
Nordamerika  I,  b.     Tredje  Pakke.     1825-1830. 

Secret  Journals  of  the  Acts  and  Proceedings  of  Congress,  1775-1788. 
4  vols.     Boston,  1921. 

Sparks,  Jared,  Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the  American,  Bevolution. 
6   vols.      Boston,    1829-1830. 

State  Papers  and  Public  Documents  of  the  United  States,  1789-1815. 
12  vols.     Third  edition.     Published  by  Thomas  B.  Wait.     Boston 

1819. 

Statutes  at  Large  of  the  United  States,  1789-1919.  Washington, 
1789-1919. 


162       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

The    American   Almanac,    18S0-1861.      32    vole.    Published    annually. 

Boston. 
The   Diplomatic   Correspondence    ot    the    United   States   of   America, 

from   the    Treaty  of  Peace   to   the  Adoption  of  the  Present  Con' 

stitution.     7   vols,     Washington,    1934. 
"Thingvalla  Line  vs.  United  States,"  24  Court  of  Claims,  255.    Also 

found  in  Lawyer's  Beports  Annotated,  Book  V.  Edited  by  Bobert 

Desty.    Rochester,  N.  Y.,  1889. 
Toldforordning  for  Rertugdommerne  Slesvig  og  Holsten,  Mai  1,  18S8. 

Kjfibenhavn,  1838. 
Uldall,    P.,    Efterladte    Optegnelse.      Udgivet    af    Klausen    og    Bist. 

Kfibenhavn,    1914.      This   is   the   memoirs   of   the   lawyer  who   de- 
fended Caroline  Matilde  in  the  divorce  trial. 
United  States  Documents. 

Executive  Documents 

22  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  VI,  Doc.  249,  Ser.  no.  221. 

24  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Vol.  I,  Doc.  19,  Ser.  no.  301. 

28  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  II,  Doc.  264,  Ser.  no.  444. 

33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Doc.  108,  Ser.  no.  726. 

34  Cong.,   1    Sess.,   Vol.   1,   Ser.   no.   840. 

35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  VII,  Doc.  31,  Ser.  no.  950. 
35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  IX,  Doc.  36,  Ser.  no.  955. 
45  Cong.,  3  Sess.,  Vol.  XVI,  Doc.  33,  Ser.  no.  1858. 

Executive  Documents  and  Beports  of  Committees. 

27  Cong.,  1   Sess.,  Doc.   1,  Ser.  no.  392. 
House   Documents. 

57  Cong.,  1  Sess,,  Vol.  XLVn,  Ser.  no.  4314. 
Rouse  Eexecutive  Documents. 

19  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Vol.  IX,  Doc.  68,  Ser.  no.  157. 

37  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Vol.  V,  Pt.  II,  Doc.  78,  Ser.  no.  1131. 

40  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Denmark,  Ser.  no.  1322. 

53  Cong.,  3  Sess.,  Denmark,  Ser.  no.  3292. 
Rouse  Journal 

21  Cong.,  2  Sess,,  Ser,  no.  205. 

25  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Ser.  no.  320. 
30  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Ser,  no.  513. 

37   Cong.,   2    Sess.,   Ser.   no.    1126. 
Rouse  Beports. 

57  Cong,,  1  Sess,,  Vol,  IX,  Doc.  2749,  Ser.  no.  4407. 
Miscellaneous  Documents. 

35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  1,  Doc.  50,  Ser.  no.  961. 
Beport  of  Committees. 

21  Cong.,  2   Sess.,  Doc.  117,  Ser.  no.  210. 

24  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Doc.  297,  Ser.  no.  306. 

29  Cong,,  1   Sess.,   Vol.  I,  206,  Ser.  no.  488. 

30  Cong,,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  I,  Doc.  9,  Ser.  no.  524. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       163 

Senate  Documents. 

21  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Doc.  21,  Ser.  no.  203. 

23  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Doc.  1,  Ser.  no.  238. 

24  Cong.,  1  Sess.  Vol.  Ill,  Doc.  198,  Ser.  no.  281. 

29  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Vol.  II,  Doc.  63,  Ser.  no.  494. 

31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  I,  Doc.  1,  Ser.  no.  549. 

32  Cong.,    2    Sess.,    St.    Croix,    Ser.   no.    665. 

35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  VII,  Doc.  28,  Ser.  no.  924. 

40  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Vol.  II,  Doc.  71,  Ser.  no.  1317. 

57  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  XX,  Doc.  284,  Ser.  no.  4239. 

59  Cong.,  1  Sess.  Vol.  IV,  Doc.  160,  Ser.  no.  4912. 

61  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Vol.  XLVII,  Doc.  357,  Ser.  no.  5646. 

61  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Vol.  XLVIII,  Doc.  357,  Ser.  no.  5647. 
Senate  Executive  Documents. 

37  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Vol.  IV,  Doc.  11,  Ser.  no.  1121. 
Senate  Journal. 

9-11  Cong.,  Vol.  IV.     No  serial  number. 

21   Cong.,   2   Sess.,  Ser.  no.  202. 

24  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Ser.  no.  296. 

30  Cong.,   1  Sess.,   Ser.  no.  502. 
37  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Ser.  no.  1116. 

Senate   Miscellaneous   Documents. 

51  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  II,  Doc.  135,  Ser.  no.  2698. 

52  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  V,  Doc.  127,  Ser.  no.  2907. 
Senate  Reports. 

33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  1,  Doc.  180,  Ser.  no.  706. 
United  States  Beports,   Cases  Adjudged  wt  the  Supreme  Court. 

J.   C.   B.    Davis,   Reporter.     Vols.    CXXII,   CXXIV,    and    CXXX. 

New  York  and  Albany,  1887-1889. 
Washington,    George,    Writings   of    George    Washington.      Edited    by 

Worthington  C.   Ford.     11  vols.  New  York,   1889-1891. 
Wegener,  C.  F.,   GeheimerarTcivets  Aarsberetninger.     7  Bind.   K6ben- 

havn,   1852-1855.     A   collection   of   documents  from   the  secret  ar- 
chives  of   the  Danish   government. 
BigsarTcivets   Aarsheretnvnger. 

4    Bind.    Kobenhavn,    1855.      A   collection    of   documents   from   the 

royal  archives  of  Denmark. 
Welles,    Gideon,    The   Diary    of   Gideon    Welles,    1861-1869.      3   vols. 

Boston   and   New   Kork,    1911. 
Wharton,  Francis,  Diplomatic  Correspondence   of  the  American  Bev- 

olution.     6   vols.   Washington,   1889. 
Wraxall,  N.  W.,  Posthumous  Memoirs.    London,  1836. 

II.     SECONDARY  SOURCES. 

Anon.,  "An  unfortunate  Princess,"  Harper's  Magazine.   (1864)   Vol. 
XXIX,  pp.  750-754.    New  York. 


164       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 

Anon.,  "Count  Struensee  and  Queen  Caroline  Matilda/'  Westminster 
Beview.     1882,   Vol.   CXVIII,   pp.   336-361.     London. 

Baden,  Gustav  L.,  Afhandlinger  i  Fcedrelandets  Historie.  3  Bind. 
Kjfibenhavn,   1821. 

Bain,  B.  N.,  Soandinavia ;  a  Political  History  of  Denmark,  Norway 
and  Sweden  from  lSlS-1900.     Cambridge,   1905. 

Butler,  Charles  H.,  The  Treaty-Making  Power  in  the  United  States. 
2   vols.     New   York,   1902. 

Cambridge  Modern  History.  Planned  by  the  late  Lord  Acton  LLJ). 
Edited  by  Ward,  A.  W.,  Prothero,  G.  W.,  and  Leathes,  Stanley. 
14  vols.     New  York  and  London,   1909-1912. 

De  Booy,  Theodore,  and  Faris,  John  T.,  The  Virgin  Islands,  Our 
New  Possessions  and  the  British  Islands.  Philadelphia  and  Lon- 
don, 1918. 

De  Bow's  Beview,  (1855),  Vol.  XVIII,  New  Orleans  and  Wash- 
ington. 

Democratic  Beview,  (1855)  Vol.  XXXVI,  New  York. 

Falkenskiold,  M.  De,  "Danish  Revolution  under  Struensee." 
Edinburgh  Beview,    (1826),   Vol.   XLIV,   pp.    360-383.     Edinburgh. 

Fredericia,  J.  A,  "Fra  hvilken  Tid  skriver  Sundtolden  sigf" 
Historisk  Tidsskrift.  4de  Rsekke,  Bind.  V.  K6benhavn.  1875- 
1877. 

Garde,  H.  G.,  Den  Danske  og  Norske  S&magt.  4  Bind.  Kj6benhavn, 
1835. 

Hall,  James  Parker,  Constitutional  Law.  This  is  Vol.  X  of  Amer- 
ican Law  and  Procedure.     12  vols.  Chicago,  1911. 

Hansen,  S6ren,  og  Olsen,  Peter,  De  Danske  Baptisters  Historie. 
Kfibenhavn,    1896. 

Hessenland,  F.,  Le  Droit  du  Sund.  Stettin,  1854.  Published  in 
French,  German,  and  English. 

Holm,  Edvard,  "Danmarks  Neutralitetsforhandlinger,  1778-1780," 
Historisk  Tidsskrift.  3dje  Rsekke,  Bind  V.  This  contains  much 
source  material. 

Danmark-Norges  Historie,  1766-1808.  KSbenhavn,  1906. 

Johnson,  Willis  F.,  American  Foreign  Belations.  2  vols.  New  York, 
1916. 

Jones,  W.  Martin,  "Two  Great  American  Treaties,"  Beview  of 
Beviews.    (1898),  Vol.  XVII,  pp.  549-561.  New  York. 

Mahlman,  Augustus,  "Caroline  Matilda,  Queen  of  Denmark," 
Blackwood's  Magazine.   (1821),  Vol.  IX,  pp.  142-147.     Edinburgh. 

Moore,  John  Bassett,  History  and  Digest  of  International  Arbitra- 
tion.    6  vols.     Washington,    1895. 

Nation,  The,  (1869)  Vol.  VXH,  pp.  248-249;  (1902),  Vol.  LXXV, 
p.   320;    (1903),   Vol.   LXXVI,   p.   283.     New  York. 

North  American  Beview.  (1826),  Vol.  XXII,  pp.  456-459.  Phil- 
adelphia.    (1902),  Vol.  CLXXV,  pp.   500-505.     New  York. 


DANISH-AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY,  1776-1920       165 

Ogg,  Frederick  Austin,  Governments  of  Europe.  New  York,  1913, 
Eev.  ed.,   1920. 

Parton,  James,  "The  Danish  Islands;  Are  We  Bound  in  Horuyr  to 
Pay  for  Them?     Boston,  1869. 

Pierce,  Edward  L.,  A  Diplomatic  Fiasco.    Boston,  1889.    A  phamplet. 

Porter,  David  D.,  The  Naval  History  of  the  Civil  War.  New 
York,    1886. 

Baeder,  Jacob  von,  Danmarks  Krigshistorie,  1807-1809.  3  Bind. 
Kj6benhavn,   1845-1852. 

Eubin,  Markus  "Sundtoldens  Afl6sning, "  Historish  TidssTcrift.  7de 
Rsekke,  Bind  6.     Kobenhavn,  1917. 

Sartorius,  Georg  F.  C,  Geschichte  des  Hanseatischen  Bundes.  3 
Band.      GSttingen,    1802. 

Schafer,  Dietrich,  "Zur  Frage  nach  der  Einfiihrung  des  Sundzolles." 
Hansische  Geschichtsbldtter.     Jarhgang   1875.     Leipsig,   1876. 

Scharf,  J.  Thomas,  History  of  the  Confederate  States  Navy.  Albany, 
1894. 

Scherer,  Hermann,  Der  Sundzoll.     Berlin,  1845. 

Schinkel,  Bernt  von.  Mi/nnen  ur  Sveriges  Nyare  Historia.  Utgifvet 
af  C.  W.  Bergman.  11  vols.     Stockholm,  1852-1872. 

Schlegel,  J.  F.  W.,  DatmuurJcs  og  HertugdSmmemes  Statsret. 
Kj6benhavn,  1827.  Chapter  VII  of  this  volume  has  been  trans- 
lated by  Geo.  P.  March  and  published  under  the  title  "Origin 
and  History  of  the  Danish  Sound  and  Belt  Dues,"  Hunts'  Mer- 
chants' Magazine.     (1844),  Vol.  X.  Boston. 

Scott,  James  Brown.  The  Armed  Neutralities  of  1780  and  1800. 
New  York,  1918. 

Sherburne,  John  Henry,  The  lAfe  and  Character  of  John  Paul  Jones. 
Second  edition.  New  York,  1851. 

Steenstrup,  Joh.,  Erslev,  Kr.,  Heise,  A.,  Molerup,  V.,  Fredericia, 
J.  A.,  Holm,  E.,  JSrgensen,  A.  D.,  og  Neergaard,  N.,  Dammarks 
Biges  Historic.  6  Bind.  Kobenhavn  og  Kristiania,  n.  d.  This 
is  the  most  complete  history  of  Denmark  we  have.  It  is  written 
on  the  same  principle  as  Cambridge  Modern  History. 

Vattel,  M.  de.  Law  of  Nations.  Edited  by  Edward  D.  Ingraham. 
Philadelphia,   1883. 

Westergaard,  Waldenmr  C,  The  Danish  West  Indies.  New  York, 
1917. 

Wraxall,  Lascelles.  "The  Hapless  Queen  of  Denmark."  EoUcftio 
Magazine    (1864),   Vol.   LXIII,   pp.   287-298.     New  York. 


INDEX 


Aabenraa,  95. 

Aalborg,    Mormons    at,    136. 

Aalborghus,    14. 

Adams,   John,    11,    12,    27. 

Alabama,    100,    132,    144. 

Alexander    I,    of    Russia,    38. 

Alexander,   Lucy,    59. 

Alfred,  flagship  of  John  Paul  Jones,  59. 

Allegiance,  problem  of,  100  ff.  See  also 
Yeaman. 

Alliance,  American  frigate,   11,  32,  58. 

American  Emigrant  Co.,   111. 

Amsterdam,  treaty  with  America,  17 ;  stand- 
ard of  sugar,   127. 

Anderson,  Rasmus  B.,  112,  116,  120,  123, 
157;  takes  up  the  Butterfield  claims  for 
arbitration,  133;  on  the  problem  of  Am- 
erican ministers  in  foreign  states,   138. 

Anglo-Danish  treaty,  of  1660,  18,  20,  62, 
63,  153;  of  1670,  20;  of  1780,  20;  of 
1846,    68;    of  extradition,    115. 

Arman,  shipbuilding  firm  at  Bordeaux, 
France,   97,   98,   99. 

Azpurua,  K.,   88. 

Bacon,    Robert,    142. 

Baden,  Gustav  L.,  Danish  historian,  67. 

Bainbridge,  Capt.  Wm.,  37.     See  also  Nis- 

sen,    Tripoli. 
Baltic  sea,   80,   81. 
Bancroft,  Edward,  at  London,   23. 
Bancroft,  George,  at  Berlin,  144. 
Baptists,    Danish,    101. 
Barbadoes,  89. 
Barron,   Com.   Samuel,  37. 
Bartram    vs.    Robertson,    121. 
Bashaw   of   Tripoli,    38. 
Basseterre,    30. 
Bayard,   T.  F.,   114,   116,    120. 
Bedinger,   Henry,   72,   75,   78,    157. 
Benjamin  Franklin,   87  ff,    129,   132;   claim 

disallowed,    135. 
Benson,   John   A.,    116;    case,    115. 
Benton,    Capt.    Thomas,    19. 
Benton,    Thomas    H.,    76. 
Bergen,  city  in  Norway,   11,   15,  32,  58. 
Bergen   prizes,    11,    15,    18,    21,   32,   34;    the 

case  ended,   58-65 ;  referred  to,   134  note. 
Berg,  H.  H.,  governor  of  St.  Thomas,  89, 

90,    128,    131. 
Berg,    Kristen,    146. 
Berlin,    29,    60,    144. 
Berlinske   Tidende,   124. 
Bernstorff,  Andreas  Peter,  Danish  Premier, 

10,    12,    13,    15,    16,    20,    21,    24,    63,    152; 

hostile  to  America,  17 ;  letter  to  the  royal 

Council   in   answer  to  the   Prince  Royal, 

17;    returns   to   power   1784,    22. 
Betsy,    English    merchantman,    one    of    tht* 

Bergen   prizes,    11,    58. 
Bigelow,    John,    100    note. 
Bille,   Carl    Steen   Anderson,   157. 
BiUe,    F.   de,    131,    132. 
Bille,      Steen,      Danish     representative      at 

Washington,    49,    85,    157. 

167 


Bille,    Torben,     Danish    representative    iX 

Washington,  72,  84,   129,  157. 
Blaine,  James  G.,  Sec.  of  State,  134. 
Bissel,    Commodore,    106. 
Blome,   Baron   de,    13,    18,   23. 
Bluhme,    Count,    79,    94,    98. 
"Boot    Kathrine",    14. 
Bordeaux,  97,  98. 
Bornholm,    Mormons   at,    136. 
Boston  Monthly  Magazine,  69. 
Bramley-Moore,    74. 
Brandt,   Enevold,    14. 
Bremen,  94,  116.  See  also  Hanseatic  towns, 

Hamburg. 
Bremerhaven,    86. 

British  Royal  Mail  Steam  Packet  Co.,  89. 
Broholm,    Rev.   Augrust,    101    note. 
Brun,     Constantin,     Danish     minister     at 

Washington,    117,    140,    142,    149,    158. 
Bryan,   William  J.,    142. 
Buchanan,    James,   70,   75,    84. 
Buchanan,  James  M.,   92,   157. 
Buck,    O.    N.,    47. 
Bund,   German,    85. 
Buren,  Martin  van,  53,  54. 
Butterfield  claims,  origin,  87  ff;  arbitration 

of,   128  ff;   claims  disallowed,   136. 

Calhoun,  John  C,  60,  70. 

Cameron,  J.   B.,   89. 

Cameron,  Senator  Simon,  108. 

Cammet  and  Co.,  90,  91. 

Campbell,    self    styled    representative    from 

Denmark,    30    note. 
Cape  Francois,    30,   36. 
Carmichael,  William,  21. 
Caroline  Mathilde,  13,  14;  at  Celle  in  Han- 
over,   15. 
Carr,    Clarke   E.,    119,    123,    138,    145,    147, 

157. 
Carstensen,    Chamberlain,    106. 
Cass,   Lewis,   84. 
Castonier,    Major,   89,    131. 
Catharina   II,   of  Russia,   25,   76. 
Catharine  Augusta,   87  ff,    130,    132;   claim 

disallowed,    135. 
Cattegat,   42,   66,   82,   97. 
Ceara,   Brazil,   95. 

Charles   II,    King   of   England,    153. 
Charlotte    Amalie,    harbor    at    St.    Thomas, 

104. 
Charming  Betsy,  Murray  vs.,  33,  34. 
Charming  Polly,  English  merchantman,  one 

of  the  Bergen  prizes,   11,   58. 
Cheops,   99. 
Cherbourg,    100. 
Chezaulx,   M.de,  French  consul  at  Bergen, 

12. 
China,    America    aids    Denmark    in,    125; 

trade-marks     in,     140-41. 
Christian  III,  King  of  Denmark,  69. 
Christian   IV,   King  of  Denmark,   69. 
Christian  V,  King  of  Denmark,   Diary  of, 

69. 
Christian  VII,  King  of  Denmark,  13. 


168       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 


Christian  IX,  of  Gliickabarg,  King  of  Den- 
mark, 76. 

Christian   August,   Prince,   in  Norway,   40. 

Cliristiansborg    castle,    146. 

Christianople,  treaty  of,  68. 

Christiansand,  Americans  at,  89;  StonetpaU 
at,  97. 

Christmas,    Walter,    episode,    148,    149. 

Christopher  II,  King  of  Denmark,  68. 

City  of  Mexico,  88. 

Clay,    Henry,    48,   49,    60. 

Clayton,   John   M.,   86,   86. 

Cleveland,    Pres.    Grover,    119,    147. 

Commtrce,    52. 

Committee  of  Secret  Correspondence,  9,  10. 

Confederacy,  93  ff;  Confederate  States,  98. 

Connell,    John,    53. 

OMt«t(llation,  U.   S.  warship,  33. 

CotmtittUion,   U.    S.   frigat«),   38. 

"Convoy  cases"  42-46,   60,   52. 

Copenhagen,  Congress  at,  78,  84;  bombard- 
ed  by    England,    38. 

Counter-claims,    Danish,    18   S. 

Coup  d'itat,  Jan.  17,  1772,  the  fall  of 
Struensee,    14,    15. 

Cramer,  Michael  J.,  103,  111,  114,  118,  131, 
132,    144,    145,    157. 

Crane,    R.    Newton,    141. 

Crimean   War,   72. 

Criminals,  importation  of,   110. 

Crone,    V.    C,    110. 

Cushing,    Caleb,    69. 

Dagbladet,   108. 

Danish  Baptists,  101;  archives  of,  101 
note;   history  of,   referred  to,   136  note. 

Danish  National  Church,  in  Virgin  Isl- 
ands,   160. 

Danish  West  Indies,  19,  87,  93,  130,  140; 
Seward's  attempt  to  purchase,  103  S; 
plebiscite  in  1867,  105,  107;  plebiscite  in 
1917,  150;  purchase  of,  143-151.  See  also 
St.   Thomas. 

Dardanelles,    78. 

Danzig.    67. 

Dashswood,   Charles,   44. 

Davis,  John  C.  B.,  Acting  Sec.  of  State, 
112,    131. 

Deane,   Silas,   9,    10. 

Democratic  party,  opposed  to  the  purchase 
of   the   Danish   West   Indies,    147. 

Denmark,  attitude  toward  American  Revo- 
lution, 9,  10,  17 ;  referred  to  by  Henry 
Wheaton,  61-62;  attitude  toward  the 
Civil  War,  93  ff;  refuses  to  give  England 
her    fleet,    38. 

Dollner,    H..    96. 

Doolittle,   Senator,  in  Denmark,  106. 

Duane,    Wm.   J.,    56. 

Dunkirk,    18. 

Dykes  and  Snow,  Mormons  in  Denmark, 
186. 

Eames,  Charles,  88. 

Egan,   Maurice  F.,   167. 

Elbe,   81. 

Elsinore,  69 ;  used  by  Russia,  71 ;  consul 
at.   97. 

England,  captures  Danish  fleet,  38;  treaty 
concerning  Samoa,  141;  willing  to  pur- 
chase Danish  West  Indies,  144,  146; 
bombarded   Copenhagen,   38. 

"Era  of   Struensee,"    18. 

Erving,  George  W.,  Envoy  to  Denmark, 
41,    61,    167. 


Estrup,  Jacob,  Danish  Premier,  145,  147. 
Evarts,    Secretary  of   State,    114. 
Experiment,    35. 
Extradition,    problem  of,    114    ff. 

Faer6   Islands,    150. 

Farragut,   Admiral,   at  Copenhagen,    105. 

Fenian   movement,    103. 

Fish,   Hamilton,   111,    126,   131,   132,    144. 

Fleker6e,    Norway,    18. 

Flenniken,    Robert    P.,    American    minister 

at   Copenhagen,   70,   157. 
Flint,   Charles  R.,   148. 
Florida,    98. 
Folkething,  lower  chamber  of  Bigsdag,  146. 

149,    151. 
Forbes,  John  M.,  46,   167. 
Forward,    Walter,    157. 
Foster,    John    W.,    147. 
France,   in   Revolutionary  War,    16;   might 

object  to   sale   of   St.    Croix,    105:    senda 

criminals  to  America,   118,    114. 
Franklm,   37. 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  10,  12,  13,  21,  63,  153. 
Franks,  J.   C,   U.    S.  marshal,   116. 
Franks,  Wm.  B.,   116. 
Fredericia,   J.   A.,    67,    164. 
Frederick,   Fort,    89. 
Frederick  III,   King  of   Denmark,    153. 
Frederick  VI,   King  of  Denmark,   65. 
Fredericksted,    144. 
Frelinghuysen,   F.  F.,   111. 
"French  certificates  of  origin,"   42-45,   60. 
Frijs,   Count  E.  Juelwind,   105,   130. 
Fulton,  Robert,  66. 

General  Simeoe,  British  privateer,   86. 

Gener,  Mr.  Jos6,  88,  90. 

Geoff roy,   M.   de,    104. 

George    III,    13,    14. 

Germany,  at  war  with  Denmark,  71,  85, 
94;  sending  criminals  to  America,  110, 
114;  opposed  to  American  pork  trade, 
122,  124;  treaty  with,  concerning  Samoa, 
willing  to  purchase  Danish  West  Indies, 
144,    147,    149. 

Geyser,  121. 

Gibraltar,    78. 

Girand,   Lieut.   P.,   96. 

Great  Britain,  see  England. 

Great  Northern   Telegraph  Co.,   126. 

Greenland,   160. 

Gresham,  W.  Q.,  128,  139  note. 

Grew,   Joseph  C,   167. 

Grieve,    Miller,    157. 

Gron,   Niels,    148. 

Guadeloupe,  81,  38. 

Gunnison,   John    G.,    59. 

Gunnison,   Nathaniel,    69. 

Hall,  M.,  Danish  Minister  of  Foreign  Af- 
fairs,   92,    93,    128,    129. 

HaU,    J.    P.,    122. 

Hamburg,   30,    46,   47,   94,    122. 

Hanseatic  towns,  correspondence  between 
67-68;   at  the  Copenhagen  Confernce,  82. 

Hansen,   George   P.,   97,    110. 

Hapgood,   Norman,    167. 

Harlan,    Senator  James,    108. 

Havana,   95. 

Hawaii,    121. 

Hawley,   Rev.   Charles,    106. 

Hay,   John,    117,    148,    149. 

Hector,   62. 


INDEX 


169 


Hegerman-Lindencrone,     J.,     see     Linden 

crone. 
Helm,   Charles   J.,    88,    128,    129,    131. 
Eendrick,  brig,   30,   32,   34,   37,  47,   53,   55, 

56  note. 
Henry,  19;   referred  to,   30  note. 
Hillier,   Benj.,   30. 
Hoffman,    Wickham,    157. 
Eojre,   Danish    political   party,    146   ff. 
Holm,    Edward,    Danish    historian,    15. 
Homestead  Act,    100. 
Hope,   44. 

Hornkvoeg   (Kvceg),  124  ff. 
Horaa,  alias  United  States,  87. 
Houze,  De  La,  French  minister  at  Copen- 
hagen,  24,   25. 
Hoyt,   Jesse,    56. 
Hurst,   C.   J.   B.,    141. 

Iceland,  150. 
Icelandic  books,  145. 

Irvin,    William,    W.,    American   representa- 
tive   at   Copenhagen,    62,   70,    157. 
Isaacsen,  Peter,  39,  40. 

Jackson,    Andrew,    54,    58. 

Jackson,  Isaac  R.,  157. 

Jacmel,    35. 

Japan,  buys  the  Stonewall,  100. 

Jarlsberg,    Count   Wedel   de,    29. 

Jay,   John,    12. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  24,  32. 

Jensen,  Mads,   alias  Jbrgensen,    111. 

Johnson,    President    Andrew,    107,    110. 

Jones,  John  Paul,  in  European  waters,  11, 
13;  negotiating  with  Denmark,  23  ff. 
See  also,  Bergen  prizes,  Janette  Taylor, 
Reventlow-Criminil,  Benjamin  Franklin, 
Wolodimer,  Catharina  II,  De  la  Houze, 
Thomas   Jefferson. 

Jonkjobing,    treaty    of,    41. 

Jiirgen  Lorentzen,  case  of,   95  ff. 

Keith,    Sir  Robert  M.,   14. 

King,  Rufus,  American  representative  at 
the   Court  of   St.   James,   29. 

Kronborg,   14.       See  also  Elsinore. 

Krusse,   Eduart,   69. 

Kvoeg  (Hornkvoeg),  124  ff. 

Lahn,    116. 

Landais,   Capt.  Peter,   11,   13,   32,  58. 

Landsthing,  upi)er  chamber  of  Rigsdag, 
146,   149,   151. 

Landtag,   opposed   to   Sound    Dues,    74. 

Lansing,  Robert,  signs  treaty  of  1916,  149. 

League   of  Armed  Neutrality,   10,   62. 

Lear,   Tobias,   38. 

Lee,    Arthur,    10. 

Leeward    Islands,    30. 

Lewis   and  Cox,    129. 

Lex  regia,   of  Holstein,   75. 

Lincoln,  President,  95,  104,  143;  sending 
Colt's  pistols  to  the  Danish  king,  95 
note. 

Lindencrone,  J.  Hegerman,  111,  125,  131, 
132,    157. 

Livingston,  Robert,  19;  proposes  that  Eur- 
opean powers  negotiate  with  U.  S. 
through  England  if  they  will  not  recog- 
nize  our   independence,   20. 

Loening,   U.   S.  consul,   116. 

London,    Protocol   of,    76. 

Lovenorn,   P.   L.  E.,   120,    157. 

Liibeck,    67. 

Lucas,   Toussaint,  35. 


Lund,   C.   N.,   a  Mormon,    136. 

McDermott,   Hugh  F.,   77. 

McKinley,   Pres.   William,   148. 

Madison,  James,   36,   41. 

Madrid,    29. 

Magee,    Rufus,    114. 

Maley,  Shattuck  vs.  35;  Lieut.  William,  35. 

Mann,    Dudley,   93. 

Marcy,   William  L.,   72,   84,   129,   132. 

Marshall,    John,    Chief  Justice,    34,    36. 

Martinique,    33. 

Mercator,   35,   45,   47,    53,    55. 

Messina,    78. 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  seeks  per- 
mission to  operate  in  Denmark,  109  note. 

Mississippi  valley,  Danes  in,   101. 

Moltke,  Count  A.  V.,   Danish  Premier,  71. 

Moltke,  Count,  representative  at  Washing- 
ton,  158. 

Money   values,    155. 

Monongahela,    106. 

Monroe,    James,    47,    58. 

Monroe    Doctrine,    143. 

Monson,  Sir  Edmund,  arbitrator  in  the 
Butterfield    case,    133-35. 

Moore,    Lieut.    H.   T.,    95. 

Morganbladet,    113. 

Mormon    problem,    135-137. 

Morning  Light,  warship,   95. 

Morris,   Andrew,    37. 

Morris,    Gouv.,    26. 

Murray,  Capt.,  33,  34;  reimbursed  by 
Congress,  35. 

Nationaltidende,  150. 

Napoleon,     38. 

Napoleon    III,    99. 

New  York  Times,  77. 

New  York  Tribume,  78,  82. 

Niles,   U.    S.   minister  at  Turin,   87. 

Nissen,  Nicholas  C,  aid  given  by  N.  to 
Americans  at  Tripoli,  37 ;  joint  resolu- 
tion thanking,   38. 

Norfolk,   91. 

Norway,  suffers  during  Napoleonic  wars, 
40  ff.  See  Bergen,  Bergen  prizes,  Chez- 
aubc. 

Nystad,   treaty  of,   76. 

O'Brien,  Thomas  J.,  157. 

Olcott,   John   N.,   87,   90. 

Olinde,  see  Stonewall. 

Olney,    Richard,    147. 

Olson,    Sir  P.    Blicher,   30,    35,    157. 

Ordination   of  Episcopalian  Ministers,   27. 

Oxholm,    General   D',    75. 

Paez,  Gen.  JosS  A.,  88. 

Page,   Capt.    V.    P.,    98. 

Palmer,    Admiral,    106. 

Palmerston,    Lord,    74. 

Panama   Canal,   influence  on  the  purchase 

of   the   Danish   West   Indies,    149. 
Parana,    89. 
Parke,    Mathew,    Captain    of    marines    on 

the    Alliance,    59. 
Parke,   Wm.   C,    59. 
Parton,  James,   104  note. 
Patagons,    Spanish   dollars,   55. 
Patent,   from   King  of  Denmark  to  Jones, 

26. 
Peary  Relief  Expedition,   139. 
Pederson,    Peder,    Danish    minister    to   the 

United   States,    37,   48,    63,    157. 
Pernambuco,    91. 


170       IOWA  STUDIES  IN  THE  SOCIAL  SCIENCES 


Perry,   Commodore  M.  C,   86. 

Persigny,  Count,  74. 

Peters,    Judge,    34. 

Peter  the  Great,  76. 

Pickering,  American   war  vessel,   80,   82. 

Petroleum   Test,    in    Denmark.    126. 

PhUadelphia,   37. 

Pickett,   J.   T.,    90,    129. 

Picquet,   Monsieur   LaMotte,    59. 

Pierce,  Edward  L.,   108. 

Plebiscite,  demanded  by  Denmark,  106, 
160. 

Plessen,    Fru,    14. 

Politiken,   150. 

Polytechnic  Institute,   126. 

Pomeroy,  John  P.  See  Benson,  John  A., 
115,    116. 

Port-au-Prince,   36. 

Porter,   James    D.,    112. 

Port  Republic,  35. 

Preston,    William    B.,    85. 

Prince  Royal  of  Denmark,  a  friend  of  the 
American    colonies,    17. 

Protection,  of  industrial  designs,  140'  by 
tariff.      See    Tariff. 

Providentia,    19. 

Prussia,  attitude  toward  American  Revolu- 
tion, 9;  attitude  toward  Sound  Dues,  74, 
77;  war  with  Denmark,  80,  85,  9i,  104; 
rumor  Prussia  wiU  trade  Schleswig  for 
St.  Thomas,  144. 

Pnggard,  Danish  merchant,  97. 

Pyramus,  H.  M.  8.,  44. 

Quiberon   Bay,   59,   97. 

Raasloff,  General  W.  R.,  96,  102,  104,  157. 

Radical   Students'   Association,    150. 

Ranger,   69. 

Ravn,  Danish  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs, 
148. 

Reedtz-Thott,  Danish  minister,  119,  125, 
146,    147. 

Reimer,    Capt.    T.   W.,    95,    96. 

Rendsborg,    royal   order    of,    38. 

Representative,  status  of  American,  in  Den- 
mark,   137    ff. 

Republican  party,  favorable  to  the  pur- 
chase of  the  Danish  West  Indies.  147- 
48. 

Reventlow,  Count  F.  de,  representative  at 
Washington,    127,    139    note,    158. 

Reventlow,    Ditlev,    10,    152. 

Reventlow-Criminil,  Count,  Danish  Pre- 
mier,  62. 

Reviere,  Amous  de  la,  97,  100. 

Rhea,  Capt.  of  the  Hope,  44. 

"Richardson  Investigation,"  of  the  Walter 
Christmas    episode,    149. 

Richardson,  Justice,  121. 

Riemenschneider,    118. 

Rigtdag,  105,  107,  126,  145,  160;  parties 
and    chambers   in,    146. 

Rio  de  Janeiro,  95. 

Risley,   John    E.,    124,    136,    147,    157. 

Roenne,   Baron   von,   85  ff. 

Rogers,    Henry    H.,    148. 

Roosevelt,   Pres.  Theodore,   117,   149. 

Rosencrone,  Baron,  Danish  Minister  of 
Foreign   Affairs,   21,   27. 

Rosenkrantz,    Baron,    Danish    Premier,    41. 

Rosenohrn-Lehn,  Baron  O.  D.,  103,  120, 
131. 

Ruhl,  John  E.,  88. 

Russia,   attitude  toward  American  Revolu- 


tion, 9,  10;  Oommeree  and  Hector  casM, 

62. 
Ryder,  Henry  B.,  Ill,  167. 
Saaby,  Hans  Rudolph,  29,  89. 
St.   Christopher,  30,  32.     See  St.  Kitts. 
St.    Croix,    reciprocity    with,    56-68;    West 

India  island,  90,   105,   121 ;  revolution  in 

1878,   144. 
St.    Domingo,   85. 
St.  John,  one  of  the  Danish  West  Indies, 

105,    148. 
St.  Kitts,   80.     See  St.  Christopher. 
St    Petersburg,    25,    29. 
St.    Thomas,    33,    35,    36,    87,    95,    104,    130, 

132,    134,    135,    143,    144,    149. 
Salomansen,    118. 
Samoan    claims,    141-48. 
San   Bias,   90,   91. 
Sanger,   von,    74. 
Saphorin,  M.  de  St.,  Danish  envoy  to  The 

Hague,    27. 
Sayre,   Stephen,   attempting  to  negotiate  a 

treaty    of    commerce    with    Denmark    in 

1777,   10,   11. 
Schifer,   Dietrich,   67,   164. 
Scheelt,  Capt.  Peter,   30. 
Schimmelman,   Count,  Danish  Premier,  52. 
Schleswig-Holstein    question,    76;    war,    85; 

second  war,   94,  98;   rumor  that  Prussia 

will    trade     Schleswig    for    St.    Thomas, 

144. 
Scholten,  General  P.  von,  66. 
Schonheyder,    Danish    naval    officer,    98. 
Seward,    Wm.    H.,    93,    96,    102,    104,    129, 

143. 
Shanghai,    125,    141. 
Shattuck,    Jared,    33,    35,    47;    v«.    Maley, 

35    ff. 
Sherman,    Senator   John,    138. 
Short,    Wm.,    26,    30. 
Snow   and    Sykes,    Mormons   in   Denmark, 

135. 
Soderstrom,    Richard,    86. 
Sorenson,   Richard,   36. 
Sorenson,  Die,  a  criminal,   110. 
Soro,  68. 

Sould,    Pierre,    129. 
Sound   Dues,    16,    17,   42;    abolition   of,   66> 

85 ;    opposed   in    Prussia,    74 ;    recognized 

by    treaty    of    Vienna,    73;     favored    in 

England,   74;    favored   by  Russia,   75 
Spain,    attitude   toward    American    Revela- 
tion,   9. 
Sphinx,  See  Stonewall. 
Sponneck,    Count,    F.    W.,    79,    168. 
Strkodder.       See  Stonewall,  97,  100. 
Steman,     Count    de,    Danish    Minister    of 

Justice,    63. 
Stonewall,   case   of  the,   97   ff. 
Struensee,  Johan  Frederik,  14. 
Sumner,  Charles,   opposed  to  the   purchase 

of  Danish  West  Indies,  107 ;  referred  to, 

148. 
Siisquehannah,   106. 

Sweden,  attitude  toward  American  Revolu- 
tion,   9,    16;    at    war   with    Denmark,    23, 

25   note ;    sending   criminals   to  Ameriefli 

114. 
Swenson,  Laurits  S.,  137,  157. 
Swift,  case,   43. 
Talbot,   Silas,   36. 
Tariff,    "of   Abominations,"    66;    on    sugar, 

121.    124,    127;    Wilson-Gormon,    124,    127. 
Taylor,  Janette,  niece  of  John  Paul  Jones, 

69. 


INDEX 


171 


Taylor,  Moses,  96. 

Texas   fever,    124. 

ThingvaUa,  113,  116;  Steamship  Line,  121, 
va.  United   States,   121  note. 

Trade-Marks  protected  in  China,   140  ff. 

Trade,   problems  of,   119  ff.  56-58. 

Treaty  of   Christianople,    68;   of  Tilsit,   38. 

Treaty,  U.  S.  and  Denmark,  of  1783-84, 
21,  22;  of  1826,  47,  50,  71,  72,  120,  122; 
abrogated,  72;  of  1830,  50-56;  of  extra- 
dition, 114-17;  postal  convention,  118;  on 
weights  and  measures,  118;  on  trade- 
marks, 119;  on  copyrights,  119;  on  But- 
terfield  claims,  133-35;  on  arbitration, 
142 ;  on  general  peace,  142-43 ;  purchas- 
ing the  Danish  West  Indies,  149-151 ; 
United  States  and  Holland,  21;  U.  S. 
and    Spain   on   extradition,    115,    117. 

Trent  affair,  95. 

Trichinosis,   from  American   iM)rk,    122. 

Tripoli,   37. 

Turin,    87. 

Tyler,  John,   60. 

TJhl,  Edwin   F.,   128. 

Union,  English  merchantman,  one  of  the 
Bergen  prizes,   11,   58. 

Vnited  States,  a  warvessel,  85  ff. 

Upshur,   Secretary  of  State,  78. 

Utah,    136,    137. 

Vedel,    Danish   Director-General,    124. 

Venezuela,  rebellion  in,  88,  90,  132;  Den- 
mark's   duty    toward,    130. 

Tenstre,  Danish  political  party,   146  ff. 

Vera   Cruz,   91. 

Vergennes,  French  minister,   19,   24. 

Virgin  Islands,  103.  See  Danish  West 
Indies,  St.  Thomas. 


Walewski,    Count,    74. 

Walterstorff,  Baron  de,  21,  63. 

Warren,  James,  Lieutenant  on  the  AUianee, 

58. 
Washington,  111. 
Webster,  Daniel,   70. 
Welles,    Gideon,    96. 
West  Indies,  Danish,  trade  in,  56,  57  note ; 

rights  of  Americans  in,  49-50.    See  also, 

Danish  West  Indies,   St.  Thomas. 
Wheaton,    Henry,    minister    to    Denmark, 

50-56,    157;    minister   to    Prussia,    60-62; 

on   the   treaty   of   1830,    60-62;    compared 

with  Monson  on  statute  of  limitation,  134 

note. 
White,    Henry,    148. 
Whitney  vs.  Robertson,  121  note. 
Wickersham,  James  P.,    157. 
Williams,    S.    Wells,    126. 
Wilkes,  Capt.  Charles,  95. 
Wilson-Gorman      tariff,       124,       127.    See 

Tariff. 
Wilson,  Woodrow,   142. 
Windward  Islands,  89. 
Winchester,   George,    56. 
Wisconsin,    Danish   Baptists   in,    101. 
World  War,   influence  on  the  purchase  of 

the   Danish  West  Indies,    149. 
Wolodimer,    25. 

Wood,   Bradford  R.,   93,   97,    98,    157. 
Woodside,  Jonathan  F.,   157. 
Wraxall,   Sir  N.  W.,   15. 
Wright,  Thomas,   33. 

X.  Y.  Z.  affair,  30. 

Teaman,    George    H.,    102,    108,    110,    129, 
157. 


:y3  Fc^ 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACIUPC 


A     001  090  922     4 


I 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Obtainable  from  the  UniverHity 
Librarian:  Price  $1.25 


